Skip to main content

Full text of "The works of the Right Reverend William Warburton .."

See other formats 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


FREDERIC  THOMAS  BLANCHARD 
ENDOWMENT  FUND 


^^Z 


BISHOP     WARBURTON'S 

W      O      R      K      S. 


VOLUME      THE      SIXTH: 

COKTAINISO 

ONTROVERSIAL     TRACTS. 

PART       I. 


Vol.  VI. 


THE 

WORKS 

O    F      T    H    E 

RIGHT      REVEREND 

WILLIAM    WARBURTON, 
LORD    BISHOP    OF    GLOUCESTER. 

IN       SEVEN       VOLUMES. 


VOLUME       THE       SIXTH. 


LONDON, 

PRINTED    BY    JOHN    NICHOLS: 
AND    SOLD    BY    T.    CADELL,     IN    THE    STRAND. 
MDCCLXXXVIII. 


- '  7 


[  -  3 

CONTENTS 


O    F 


THE     SIXTH     VOLUME. 


A      FIND  ICATlON  of  the  Author  of  the  Divine  Legation 
of  Mofes,  &c.  from  the  Afperfons  of  the  Country  C!ergyma?i's 
Letter  in  the  Weekly  Mifcellany  of  February  24,   i  737  ;  p.  i  — 15. 

A  CRITICAL  and  Philofophical  Commentary  on  Mr.  Pope's 
Effhy  on  Man.  In  which  is  contained  a  Vindication  of  thefaid  Effay 
from  the  Mifrcprefentations  of  M,  De  Refiiel,  the  French  Tranflator, 
and  of  M.  De  Croufaz,  Profejfor  of  Pbilofophy  and  Mathematics  in 
the  Academy  of  Laufanne,  the  Commentator^  p.  17 — 168. 

REMARKS  on  a  Book,  intituled,  "  Future  Rewards  and 
<'  Pmiifments  believed  by  the  Antients,  particularly  the  Philofophers ; 
«'  wherein  fome  OhjeBions  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Warburton,  in  his  Divine 
"  Legation  ofMofes,  are  confidered,  1 742  ;"  with  a  Poffcript,  in  An- 
fwer  to  fome  Objections  of  Dr.  Sykes;  and  a  Letter  to  Bp.  Sinallbrook, 

p.  169-249. 

REMARKS  onfeveral Occafional  Refledlions:  In  Anfwer  to  the 

Rev.   Dr.  Middleton,  Dr.  Pococke,  The  Mafter  of  the  Chartcr- 

Houfe,  Dr.  Richard  Grey,  and  others  ;  ferving  to  explain  andjuflify 

divers  Pajfages  in  the  Divine  Legation,  ohjeSled  to  by  thofe  Learned 

a  2  Writers. 


iv  CONTENTS  OF  THE  SIXTH  VOLUME. 

Ji'riters.  Tow6h/jisaMJ,  A  general  Review  of  the  Argument  of 
t'.e  D  vine  Legation,  as  fir  ca  is  yet  advanced  \  wherein  is  confdered 
the  Re!qtion  tj  the  fever dl  Parts  to  each  other  ^  and  to  the  Whole.  To- 
gather  ivith  an  Appendix^  in  Anjwer  to  a  late  Pamphlet,  intituled, 
-*»  /In  Examination  of  Mr.  Ws  Second  Propofition"  p.  251 — i']']. 

R  E  MA  R  KS  onftveral  Occafional  Refiedlions ;  In  Anfwer  to  the 
Rc:;reni  Dotfors  Stebbing  and  Sykes  ;  ferving  to  explain  andjiijlify 
the  T'JDO  Dijfertations  in  the  Divine  Legation,  concerning  the  Com- 
rund  to  Abraham  to  offer  up  his  Son  ;  and  the  Nature  of  the  Jtwi/Jj 
theocracy  ;  ohje^ed  to  by  thofe  Learned  Writers ;  Part  II.  and  hjl ; 

P  379— 53^- 


A  VINDI- 


A 

VINDICATION 


OF    T  HE 


AUTHOR 


The  divine  LEGATION  of   MOSES,   &c. 

FROM 

The  Afperfions  of  the  Country  Clergyman's  Letter  in  the 
Weekly  Miscellany  of  February  24,  1737. 


Vol.  VI. 


I    3    ] 


VINDICATION 


AUTHOR 


The    divine   LEGATION    of    MOSES,    &c. 


AFTER  having  twice  offered  my  Thoughts  to  the  Public, 
on  two  very  important  SiibjeSls^  and  had  the  Honour  to  be 
favourably  heard,  it  mufl  needs  be  a  fufficient  Mortification  to  me 
to  be  obliged  to  defcend  to  fo  low  a  SubjeSl  as  myfelf.  TJjat^  and 
the  Deference  due  to  the  Public,  had  certainly  reftrained  this  Appeal 
to  it,  had  the  Matter  terminated  there.  But  when  the  Accufation 
intended  againfl  me  appeared  vifibly  defigned  to  render  a  projeded 
Defence  of  Revelation  fufpeded  ;  which,  I  will  prefume  (and,  as 
the  Author  of  it,  the  Reader  will  excufe  me  for  prefuming)  may 
be  of  fome  fmall  Service  to  our  Holy  Faith,  I  thought  it  my  Duty 
to  vindicate  myfelf,  in  this  public  Manner,  from  the  horrid  Accufa- 
tions  of  a  Letter  Writer  in  the  Weekly  Mifcellany  of  the  24th  of 
February  laft.  Whether  this  was  the  true  Motive  of  this  Vindica- 
dication  will  be  befl  feen  by  the  Temper  in  which  it  is  written. 
B  2  The 


4        A  VINDICATION  OF  THE  AUTHOR 

The  Letter  Writer  begins  with  me  in  this  Manner,  ^  late  IP"/ iter, 
the  Author  of  the  Dii'itic  Legation  of  Mofes^  &c.  is  very  fcvere  upon^ 
ALL  CUrgymen  -who  tJke  the  Liberty  of  cetifuring  the  Conduct  of  any 
OF  THEIR  Brethren.     The  Pafihge,  on  which  this  Accufation  is 

loundcJ,  is  in  p.  21  ♦  of  the  Dedication 1  appeal  then  to  the  Publicy 

whether  my  Siverity  falls  on  thofe  ivho  cenfure  the  conduSi  of  any  of 
tleir  Brethren:  or  on  thofe,  who  abufe  the  whole  Body  of  the 
CUrgy,  confidered  as  an  Order  irtflituted  by  Chriji^  and  efablifJoed  by 
the  Stale. 

He  goes  on, If  I  am  capable  of  underjlanding  the  Meaning  and 

Drift  of  his  Book,  he  had  Reafon  to  apprehend  it  might  draw  upon  him 

the  Cenfures  cf  all  the  Clergy  -who  arefmcere  Friends  to  Chrijiianity 

therefore  it  might  be  politic  to  -obviate  the  Force  offuch  Animadverjions 
before-hand.  Had  I  been  confcious  of  deferving  the  Cenfure  of  any 
honcft  Man,  I  had  done,  like  thofe  who  delight  in  Mifchief  j  I  had 
wounded  in  the  Dark.  But  when  I  chofe  to  write  without  a  Name^ 
it  was  for  very  contrary  Purpofes.  Wlien  I  prefumed  to  publiOi 
(in  Defence  of  the  Eftablifhed  Clergy)  a  Vindication  of  the  Church 
of  England,  under  the  Title  of  The  Alliance  between  Church  and 
State,  which  furely  might  deferve  their  Pardon,  left  the  World 
fliould  Imagine  I  expeded  more,  1  put  it  out  without  my  Name. 
And  now  writing  in  the  common  Caufe  of  Chrijiianity,  I  have 
publicly  owned  it.  For  if  ever  the  Sufpicion  of  being  afliamed  of 
the  Faith  of  Jefus  be  more  carefully  to  be  avoided  at  one  time 
than  at  another,  it  muft  certainly  be  in  this,  when  Infidelity  is- 
become  fo  reputable  as  to  be  efteemed  a  Tcft  of  fuperlor  Parts  and 
Difcernment. 

He  proceeds.—//.//  add,  that  if  he  really  means  to  defend 
Chr,Jl>an,ty,  he  hath  pubh/I^ed  the  ^.eake/l  Defence  of  M  that  I  have 
ever  read.  How  are  we  to  underftand  him  here  ?  Muft  we  redlfy 
he  Propofit.on  thus.—//,/.,  ^,,,,,,;,,,  ,,.^  ^^^^^^  ^^ ^  ^     J 

c    Chr>juan,y    then  n  .  the  weakefl? The  Con fequence  will 

tl.cn  .ndccd  be  true.     But  I  had  cut  ofFall  Pretence  ^0} begging  Z 

*  fiifl  Edit.  8vo. 

Pre- 


FROM  THE  ASPERSIONS  OF  WEBSTER.     5 

Premijfes.  For  I  have  formally  and  expreffly  faid  in  the  Beginnhig, 
and  repeated  it  towards  the  End,  that  the  Deiign  of  this  Volume 
was  only  preparatory  to  the  Defence  of  Revelation,  and  to  prove 
the  ufe  of  Religion  in  general^  and  tli€  DoSlrifie  of  a  future  State  in 
f  articular  to  Civil  Society.  And  had  I  not  faid  this,  the  Book  itfelf 
would  (hew  that  it  is  no  more  a  Defence  of  Chrifianity  than  the  firft 
Propofition  of  the  three  Terms  is  a  Syllogifm. 

But  if  the  Letter  Writer  means,  what  his  Words  exprefs, 

Xhat  if  I  have  aferious  Purpof  of  d  fending  Chriftianity,  this  Volume 
is  the  weahejl  Defence  f  his  Premifles  will  be  true  indeed,  but  thea 
they  will  have  no  relation  to  his  Conclufion.  For  it  does  not  fol- 
low from  thofe  Premifles,  that  this  is  any  Defence  at  all',  any  more 
than  that,  if  1  had  a  ferious  Purpofe  of  building  a  Houfe,  the 
Foundation-ftones  were  that  Houfe. 

The  Deference  due  to  the  Public,  from  fo  obfcure  a  Writer  as 
myfelf,  was  the  true  Reafon  why  this  firfl:  Part  came  out  fepa- 
rately  ;  the  Author  not  prefuming  to  obtrude  a  voluminous  Work 
upon  it  till  he  had  fome  Aflurance  of  its  Willingnefs  to  receive  it. 
But  the  fame  regard  that  obliged  me  to  this  Conduct,  would  not 
fuffer  me  to  make  a  Secret  of  the  Medium  by  which  I  pretended  tO' 
eftabhfli  my  Demonftration,  efpecially  as  it  had  the  Fortune  to  be 
generally  efleemed  a  Paradox.  I  therefore  gave  the  Proof  in  form 
two  Years  ago  in  the  Jlppendix  to  The  Alliance  between  Church  and 
State..  There  it  is  to  be  found ;  and  had  the  Letter  Writer,  in- 
ftead  of  indulging  his  monftrous  Sufpicions  of  the  Author,  turned 
himfelf  to  making  Obje£tions  to  his  Argument,  he  might  poffibly 
have  then  as  much  ferved  Truth  as  he  now  has  violated  Charity, 

He  goes  on, — Ue  is  a  warmer  Advocate  for  Dr. ,  who  denie-' 

the  Divine  Infpiration  of  the  Scriptures,  than  for  the  Scripture' ^'^^'J^- 
felves.  How  warm  an  Advocate  I  am  for  him,  we  fhal'  ^^^  ^J  ^"d 
by ;  how  true  an  Accujer  the  Letter  Writer  is  of  "i^i,   we  fliall 

examine  at  prefent.     Dr.  fays*,  //  is  >t-'CESSARY  to  believe 

of  the  Scriptures  in  general  that  they  are  d'omely  Injpired ;  and  that 

■  *  Remarks  on  a  Reply  to  the  Defence  "i  a  Letter  to  Dr.  W.  p.  6g. 

alli 


6      A   VINDICATION  OF  THE  AUTHOR 

all  wl.ich  he  denies  Is,  ihai  the  Scriptures  are  of  abfolute  and  mi- 
v.rja!  Infftration*.  He  flicws  that  Ttlhtfon  and  Grottus  were  of 
t!jc  fame  Opinion,  who,  he  charitably  prefumes,  were  Chrijiians. 
And  as  lie  tells  his  Friends  and  Acquaintance  the  fame  he  tells  the 
Public,  the  Letter  Writer  mufl:  excufe  me,  if  I  believe  a  Man  whofe 
Candour,  Sincerity,  Benevolence,  and  Charity  I  have  experienced, 
before  him,  who  has  not  given  me  the  Pleafure  of  remarking  in  him 
any  of  thofc  Chriftian  Qiialities. 

But  I  would  not  have  the  Letter  Writer  infer,  that,  becaufe  he 

has  been   pleafed  to   make  me  Dr.  *s  Advocate,  I  am  to  be 

rcfponfiblc  for  his  Opinions.  I  differ  widely  from  him  in  the 
Matter  of  Infpiration,  and  as  widely  in  fome  others.  But  we  can 
differ  from  each  other,  and  avow  and  maintain  our  Difference  of 
Opinion,  without  Violation  of  common  Humanity,  Friendfhip,  or 
Chriflian  Charity.  I  will  give  the  Letter  Writer  another  Liftance 
of  Difference  in  Opinion  between  us,  from  this  very  Book  he  fo 
much  condemns.     The  Writer  of  the  Defence  of  the  Letter  to  Dr, 

W.  p.  45,  fays, //  the  Notion  of  the  Divine  Origin  of  the  Law 

and  hfpiiation  of  Mofes  to  be  refohed  into  FiBion,  or  Fahle,  or 
Politic  jI  Lying  ?  No,  far  be  it  from  me  to  think  or  fay  fo.  But  this  per- 
haps one  may  ■  venture  to  fay,  that  the  Suppofition  of  fome  Degree  of 
fucb  Ficlion  may  pojibly  he  found  neceffary  to  the  fohing  the  Difficulties 
of  the  Mofiic  Writings,  without  a?iy  Hurt  to  their  Authority,  or  Ad- 
vantage to  Infidelity.  I  am,  as  I  fay,  of  a  different  Opinion.  The 
Writer  endeavours  to  fupport /?^/V  by  feveral  Arguments ;  amongfl 
which  one  is,  the  Profeffions  and  Example  of  the  ancient  Sages  and 
Legijlators.  Now,  in  the  fecond  Seftion  of  my  Third  Book  I  have 
''-.uired  into  the  Principles  that  induced  the  ancient  Sages  and 
Lcg,lla.,,.s  to  deem  it  lawful  to  deceive  for  the  Public  Good  ;  in 
the  Dilcove.^  of  ^hich,  I  think,  1  have  made  it  evident  that  thofe 
Rc.f.nor  Pnnc:^i,,  ^^^^^  ^^^^^  ,^^  pj^^^^  ^^  ^^^  ^^^^^^^^^ 

^nd  I  ropagators  of  tn,  y,.^./^  ^.^  Chrifiian  Religions.     This  Truth 

'  ^"'"'"  °"  '  ^^P'y  '»  '-c  Defence  of  a  Letter  to  Dr.  W.  p.  70. 

(as 


FROM  THE  ASPERSIONS  OF  WEBSTER.     7 

(as  well  as  feveral  others  interfperfed  throughout  this  Firft  Volume,, 
and  which  may  perhaps  give  Offence  to  the  indifcreet  Zeal  of  the 
Letter  Writer)  is  in  my  next  Volume  applied  and  inforccd  to  the 
Overthrowing  that  Opinion  that  fome  Degree  of  Fi£lion  may  be  ne- 
eejfary^  &c.  And  even  in  t/jis  I  could  not  forbear,  in  the  mofi: 
ccnfpicuous  Place  of  my  Book,  to  (hew  the  UCe  of  it,  as  may  be 

feen  by  thefe  Words  of  the  Contents,  B.  III.  S.  2. TAe  Princl- 

fles,  that  induced  the  ancient  Sages  to  deem  it  lawful  to  deceive  for 
Public  Good  in  Matters  of  Religion,  are  explained  and  shewn  to 

BE  SUCH  AS  HAD  NO  PlACE  IN  THE  PROPAGATION  OR  GeNIUS  OF 

THE  Jewish  AND  Christian  Religion. 

But  I  am  a  warm  Advocate  for  Dr. .  In  what  ?  I  have  called' 

him  a  very  formidable  Adverfary  to  the  Free  Thinkers,  And  I  think 
I  had  Reafon  :  For  the  Arguments  he  hath  ufed  for  the  Truth  of 
Chrijlianity  agalnft  Tindal  have  never  yet  been  anfwered  by  them, 
nor  I  think  ever  can.  I  fay  for  the  Truth  of  Cbrifianity  ;  for  his 
Reafonings,  from  p.  59  to  64*,  relate  only  to  its  Truth,  and  can: 
be  underftood  in  no  other  Senfe.  After  this,  to  think  he  would 
have  Chrifianify  fupported  only  becaufe  it  is  ufeful,  is  fuch  a  Way 
of  interpreting  a  Writer  as  my  Charity  will  never  fuffer  to  fol- 
low. 

The  Opinion  I  have  of  Dr. 's  Abilities,  and  of  the  Sincerity 

of  his  Profeffions,  were  the  true  Reafons  of  that  Efteem  I  exprefs 
for  him;  being  defirous  of  allaying  all  Difguft,  if  any  hath  arifen 
in  him,  from  the  Treatment  of  his  lefs  candid  Adverfaries  ;  and  of 
engaging  him  to  a  further  and  more  compleat  Vindication  of  our 
Holy  Faith,  at  a. Time  when  the  good  Difpofitions  of  the  meaneft 
Advocate  for  Revelation  Tnould  not,  I  think,  in  Prudence  be  dif- 
couraged  :  Nay,  was  I  fo  unhappy  to  think  of  Dr.  — — -  as  tha 
Letter  Writer  is  difpofed  to  do,  I  (liould  yet  be  inclined  to  beiiave 
myfelf  very  differently  towards  him.  I  fhould  be  fo  far  from 
eilranging  him  further  from  the  Faith  by  uncharitable  Anathemas,. 

*  Letter  to  Dr.  W. 

that:- 


S  A  VINDICATION  OF  THE  AUTHOR 

tl»at  I  fliould  do  all  I  could  to  court  and  allure  Iiim  to  Chriftianity^ 
by  tbinkin^wtlUfits  Profejors.  Thus  much,  I  conceive,  Chrijiian 
Charity  would  require;  and  how  tar  Chrijiian  Policy  would  per- 
luade,  let  the  Learned  fny,  who  know  what  Ornament  his  Pen 
would  be  to  the  ChriAian  Faith,  and  his  Acquaintance  of  what  Ex- 
ample his  Morals  to  Chriftiai^  Pra£lice. 

But  the  Letter  Writer,  having  taken  it  into  his   Plead,  that  Dr. 

's  true  Sentiments  are,  that  Chnftianiiy  can  only  be  defended 

as  ukful  in  the  prefent  Circumftances  of  Life,  makes,  as  it  would 
leem,  this  Imagination  the  Key  to  my  real  Sentiments  and  Defigns 

in  defending  Revelation.     Hence  thofe  ftrange  Expreflions If  I 

am  capable  of  underjlanding  the  Meaning  and  Drift  of  his  Book — he 
mujl  fxcufe  me,  if  I  fufpcSl  his  Faith  and  condemn  his  Book  .  >This 
I  am  Jure  of  the  Author  muJl  be  afubtile  Enemy  to  Revelation,  or  a 

very  indifcreet  Friend 1  mufl  own  he  has  left  me  in  no  Doubt. 

Now  if  thofe  be  Dr. 's  true  Sentiments,  which  yet  I  no  more 

believe  than  that  Tindal  was  a  Chrijiian  in  his  Heart,  I  (hall  not 
fcruple  to  fay  that  he  whom  I  called  one  of  the  moft  formidable  of 
the  Free-Thinkers  Adverfaries,  is  indeed  one  of  the  weakeft:  and 
moll  contemptible.  But  if  they  be  mine,  after  all  I  have  faid  in 
this  Volume,  I  will  not  fcruple  to  fay,  that  That  Charafler  would 
be  far  too  mild  for  me ;  and  that  it  would  be  but  Juftice  to 
efteem  me  the  moft  abandoned  Writer  that  ever  appeared  in  any 
Caufe. 

Let  us  now  take  \\\\iKey,  and  apply  it  to  what  I  have  written. 

And  it  will  indeed  thoroughly  ferve  the  Letter  Writer's  declared  Pur- 
pofe  to  Ifjfen  my  Credit.  For  it  will  make  the  whole  Volume  a  Heap 
of  Abfurdities  and  Contradiftions.  But  lay  afide  this  vifionary  Key, 
and  let  me  be  interpreted  by  thofe  common  Rules  that  all  Mankind 
have  ever  ufed  in  underftanding  one  another,  and  then  it  will  be 
feen  I  could  not  poffibly  have  had  any  other  Intention  than  to 
PROVE  Moses  to  be  a  true  Prophet  sent  immediately  and 
EXTRAORDINARILY  FROM  GoD.—I  pretend   to  do  it  from  Mofeis 

Omiffion 


FROM  THE  ASPERSIONS  OF  WEBSTER.      9 

Omiffion  of  the  Do£lrine  of  a  future  State  ;  which  under  an  unequal 
Providence,  is  (as  I  have  fhevvn  in  this  Book,  that  being  the  only 
End  of  writing  it)  abfolutely  neceflary  to  Society.  From  whence 
I  conclude  Mofes's  Pretenfions  were  true  :  who  alTured  the  Ifraeliles 
that  God  had  chofen  them  to  be  his  People,  had  condefcendcd  to 
be  their  King,  and  would  confequently  govern  them  by  an 
EOUAL,  that  is  an  extraordinary  Providence  ;  which  Con- 
clufion  (that  appears  almoft  felf  evident)  I  employ  my  fecond 
Volume  to  fupport,  illuftrate,  and  free  from  Objedions. 

Hence  it  appears  on  what  Account  I  fo  much  infifl:  on  the  Uf::- 
fulnefs  and  NeccJJity  of  Religion  in  general,  and  the  Doftrine  of  a 
future  State  in  particular  to  Society.  The  Courfe  of  my  Argument, 
and  all  the  Rules  of  Logic,  obliged  me  to  this  Condudl :  And  in- 
deed I  thought  it  the  peculiar  Happinefs  of  my  Argument  that 
they  did  fo ;  for  I  fuppofe,  till  the  Infidels  be  convinced  that  Reli- 
gion is  tifeful  to  civil  Society,  they  will  never  be  brought  to  believe 
it  true. 

I  now  hafte  to  the  other  Part  of  the  Letter-writer's  Charge,  left 
he    (hould   be   tempted,  in  his   Impatience,  to   repeat  it ;   and  fiy 

again,  that  /  am  a  warmer  Advocate  for  Dr. than  for  the 

Scriptures.  The  Reader,  who  has  never  feen  my  Book,  will  natu- 
rally conclude  from  thefc  Words,  that  either  I  had  undei  "valued 
Scripture,  or  at  leaft  negleded  a  fair  Opportunity  of  vindicating  if. 
He  will  be  furprifed  to  be  told  that  the  latter  Part  of  the  Charge 
v/as  only  for  compleating  the  Antithcfis.  So  indeed  it  appears  to  me  ; 
but  the  Reader  fliall  judge  for  himfelf. 

There  are  but  two  Places  in  this  Volume,  in  which  I  had  Occa- 
{ion  to  make  Obfervations  on  the  Scripture ;  the  one  is  at  p.  1 1 7, 
where  I  endeavour  to  ihew  that  the  Argument  which  the  Com.- 
mentators  ufe  to  prove  the  Pentateuch  (again ft  ^/«(5/2/  and  others) 
to  be  written  by  Mofes,  is  a  very  ftrong  and  folid  one.  The  other 
is  at  p.  83.  where  I  fay,  that  the  New  Teftament  does  not  contain 
any  regular  or  compkat  Syfem  or  Digef  of  moral  Imws  ;  the  occa- 

VoL.  VL  C  fional 


,o  A  VINDICATION  OF  THE  AUTHOR 
Jianal  Precept t  there  delivered,  how  excellent  and  divine  Joever,  arijing 
only  from  ConjunHures  atid  Circumjlances  that  were  the  SubjeBs  of 
tboft  Preachings  or  tm  tings,  in  ivbich  fucb  Precepts  are  found.  For 
the  refi,  for  a  general  Knowledge  of  the  whole  Body  of  moral  Duty,  the 
great  Pandeti  of  the  Law  of  Nature  is  held  open  by  it  to  be  fearched 
and  fludied.  Finally,  fays  the  jipoflle  Paul,  whatfoever  Things  are 
true,  (^c. 

I  fuppofc  then,  if  the  Letter  Writer  had  any  particular  Meaning, 
this  was  the  Place  that  was  to  juftify  him  in  faying  that  I  was  no 
xoarm  Advocate  for  the  Scriptures.  But  does  the  New  Tefiament 
contain  any  fuch  compleat  or  regular  Syflem  ?  will  the  Letter  Writer 
fay  fo  ?  will  any  one  befides  fay  fb  ?  How  weak  and  indifcreet  a 
Friend  foever  he  may  pleafe  to  think  me  of  Religion,  I  will  affure 
the  Reader,  that  as  I  make  it  one  Point  of  my  Religion  to  fay 
nothing  but  what  I  think  the  Truth,  fo  I  do  not  ufe  to  throw  about 
thofc  Truths  at  random.  The  Obfervatioa  was  here  neceffary  to 
overthrow  the  mofl:  pernicious  Doftrine  that  ever  infcfted  Society. 
If  it  was  true,  then,  it  was  not  unthnely  urged.  But  had  the 
Letter  Writer  had  a  little  Patience,  he  would  have  feen  in  the  fecond 
Volume  (as  that  will  be  the  Cafe  of  many  other  Truths  interfperfed 
throughout  the  firft)  that,  by  the  Affiftance  of  this  very.  Truth,  I 
(H'crthrow  a  prevailing  Notion,  which  I  fuppofe  He,  no  more  than 
/,  will  think  very  orthodox,  namely,  thai  Chrifiianiiy  is  only  a 
Republication  of  the  Religion  of  Nature. 

This,  I  can  affure  the  Reader,  is  the  Cafe  of  all  other  Principles 
occafionally  laid  down  in  this  firft  Volume,  which  are  not  only 
here  ufcd  to  prove  the  Ufefulnefs  and  Truth  of  Rehgion  in.gene- 
ral,  but  are  in  the  next  Volume  applied  to  prove  the  Truth  of 
Revelation  in  particular.  To  give  one  Inftance  at  prefent,  in 
the  fixth  Sedion  of  the  fecond  Book,  I  have  attempted  to  ex- 
plain the  Nature  of  Paganifm,  as  diftingullhed  from  true  Re- 
velation;    where    I    have   (hewn,    that    though    they    abounded 


FROM  THE  ASPERSIONS  OF  WEBSTER,  ii 

in  pretended  Revelations,  they  were  utter  Strangers  to  the  Idea  of 
one  Revelation's  being  founded  upon,  or  the  Completion  of  another. 
This  Principle  I  apply  and  in  force  in  the  fecond  Volume  againfl  the 
fourth  Chapter  of  Collins's  Grounds  and  Retifons  of  the  Chrifiian  Re- 
ligion, where  he  lays  it  down  for  one  of  his  fundamental  Principles 
(againft  all  Antiquity  and  Faft)  that  it  is  a  common  and  neccffary 
Method  for  new  RevelatioJis  to  be  built  and  grounded  on  precederit  Reve- 
lations.    See  p.  20 — 26. 

The  Letter  Writer  proceeds— —Mr.  Warburton  modejlly  fays, 
they  \the  Englifli  Clergy"^  have  undertaken  to  prove  Chrijiianity 
without  underjlanding  it.  As  in  the  Cafe  before,  about  cenfuring 
the  Condud  of  Clergymen,  the  Letter  Writer  turned  what  I  faid 
in  general  of  the  Body,  particularly,  to  Individuals  ;  fo  here,  by  a 
flrange  Perverfity,  he  turns  what  I  faid  particularly  of  fome  cer- 
tain Perfons,  generally,  to  the  Englifj  Clergy.  My  Words  are 
thefe,  p.  2.  Who,  in  this  long  Controverff  between  us  and  the  Deijls, 
hath  not  applied  to  certain  late  Advocates  of  Revelation  what  %vas 
formerly  faid  of  Arnobius  and  La6tantius,  that  they  undertook  the 
Defence  of  Chrijiianity  before  they  ttnderjlood  it  ? 

But  have  none  but  E?tgliJlome?i  wrote  of  late  in  Defence  of 
Chrifiianity  ?  Have  no  Enghjlimen  but  the  Englif}  Clergy  wrote 
in  Defence  of  it  ?  If  neither  of  thefe  Queftions  can  be  anfwered 
in  the  Negative,  I  would  alk  a  third,  What  poflelled  the  Letter- 
Writer  to  bear  Witnefs  againft  me,  to  the  World,  that  I  have 
any  where  faid  that  the  Rnglifi  Clergy  have  undertaken  to  prove 
Chrifianity  without  underjlanding  it  ?  I  folemnly  declare,  that  in 
the  Paffage  above  quoted  I  meant  no  Engljli  Clergyman  what- 
foever.  So  far  from  that,  I  exprefsly  fay,  in  p.  1 9  of  the  Dedi- 
cation, that  the  Clergy  of  the  efablijhed  Church  are  they  who 
have  been  principally  watchful  in  the  Common  Caufe  of  Chrif- 
iianity, and  MOST  successful  in  repelling  the  Infults  of  its  Ene- 
mies. I  muft  appeal  then,  this  fecond  Time,  to  the  Public  for 
Jujlice. 

C  2  As 


:z        A  VINDICATION  OF  THE  AUTHOR 

As  I  was  cold  in  Deteiice  of  Scripture  in  general,  fo  my  nexr 
Charge  is,  that  I  have  umhrvalucJ  the  Evidence  arlfing  from  Mi- 
racles.    Would  the  Reader  know   how  ?^- Hardly,    by    faying, 

as  I  cxprci;iy  do,  p.  3,  that  Men  have  proved  our  Religion  adlualiy 
divine  thereby.  But  this  went  for  nothing,  becaufe  I  faid  in  the 
fame  Place,  that  the  external  Evidence  (in  which  Miracles  are 
included)  is  na/  capable  of  Jlri£l  Demonjhation  ;  hue  that  the  In- 
ternal is.  Now  here  might  be  fome  Pretence  for  %ing  I 
over-value  J  internal  Evidence  :  But  by  what  Kind  of  Logic  it 
could  be  inferred  that,  therefore,  I  undervalued  Miracles,  I  know 
not. 

The  Letter  Writer  next  turns  (as  it  would  feem)  from  me  to- 
thofe  who  deny  the  Divinity  of  Chrifl-,  the  Merits  of  his  Death, 
the  Obligation  and  EfcSls  of  the  Sacraments.,  and  the  Do&rine  of 
Grace.  But  it  is  but  feeming.  He  appears  willing  tliat  thefe 
{A'iz  Opinions  (hould  be  thought  mine:  For  having  charged  me 
with  horrid  Crimes,  without  S-hadow  of  Proof  or  Probability,  he 
would  cover  the  Scandal  by  infinuating  me  guilty  of  Heterodoxy  ;• 
or  why  elfe  did  he  lead  his  Reador  to  the  very  Door  of  Calumny, 
by  artfully  joming  me,  as  undervaluing  Miracles,  to  one  of  thefe,  who 
he  fays  denies  the  Truth  of  one  of  them  ? 

But  the  Letter  Writer  fhould  have  confidered,  if  this  was  his 
Defign,  that  in  this  very  Book  I  affirm  more  than  once  or  twice, 
that  the  DoSlrine  of  Redemption  is  the  Foundation,  and  of  the  very 
Eflcnce  of  Chrijlianity.  He  fhould  have  known  that  all  or  moft  of 
thofc  true  Chrlfhan  Doftrines  mentioned  above  are  cx)ntained,  in 
the  DMrine  of  Redemption. 

There  are,  and  thofe  efteemed  fincere  Chriflians  too,  who  would 
have  taken  the  Names  of  Infidel  and  Heretic  for  Favours  at  the 
Hand  of  the  Letter  Writer.  But  I  am  of  a  different  Humour. 
Thefe  Titles  have  no  Charms  for  me.  I  have  lived  fome  Time 
in  the  World  ;  and,  blcffed  be  God,  without  giving  or  tahing  Of- 
fence.    This  Time  has  been  fpent  in  my  PariOi  Church  (for  I  am 

a  Country 


FROM  THE  ASPERSIONS  OF  WEBSTER.  13 

a  Country  Clergyman,  and  refide  conflantly  on  my  Cure)  in  the 
Service  of  my  Neighbour,  in  my  Study,  and  in  the  Offices  of  filial 

Piety, 

*'  Witli  lenient  Arts  t^cxtcnd  a  Mother's  Breath, 

"  Make  Languor  fmile,  and  fmooth  the  Bed  of  Death, 

"  Explore  the  Thought,  explain  the  afkiug  Eye, 

"  And  keep  awhile  one  Parent  from  the  Sky." 

Excefs  of  Zeal  in  fuch  as  the  Letter  Writer,  and  Defeat  of  Re- 
ligion in  others  of  better  Breeding,  fo  efface  thefe  Feelings  of 
Nature,,  that  I  could  hardly  have  known  how  to  have  told  them, 
had  1  not  both  the  Example,  and  the  fine  Words  too,  of  one  of 
the  politefl:  Men  of  the  Age  to  keep  me  in  Countenance.-  The 
Time  fpent  in  my  Study  has  been  employed  in  confirming  my 
own  Faith  againft  the  erroneous  Opinions  the  Letter  Writer  has. 
raked  together,  and  iben.  In  planning  a  Work  to  confirm  my 
Brethren.  All  the  Reward  I  ever  had,  or  ever  expeft  to  have 
here,  is  the  Teflimony  of  a  good  Confcience  within  Doors,  and  a 
good  Name  without.  The  firft  no  Man  can  take  from  me  ;  the 
other,  this  Letter  Writer,  ia  the  moft  unchriftian.  Manner,  has  at- 
tempted to  invadci 

But  I  heartily  forgive  him  :  And  inftead  of  putting  un- 
charitable Conflrudlions  on  his  fecret  Intentions,  will  believe,. 
though  I  know  no  more  of  him  than,  by  his  Letter,  that  he  is 
fincere,  and  only  unhappily  agitated  by  a  furious  Zeal  for  the  Caufe 
of  God  and  Religion  ;  inftead  of  tiiinking  he  ought  to  be  hindered 
from  any  farther  Advancement  in  the  Church.  Jf  the  Want  of  that 
be  the  Caufe  of  his-  Spleen  and  Virulency,  I  heartily  wifii  it  may 
be  fpeedily  removed  :  nay,  that  the  Letter  he  has  wrote  againlt 
me  may  contribute  towards  it.  Inftead  of  vjing.  any  -warm  En- 
deavours to  lifen  his  Credit,  which  he  profefles  in  fo  many  Words- 
to  be  his  Purpofe  againft  me,  I  wifti  him  all  Increafe  of  Reputa- 
tion and  Honour  ;  and   inftead  of  infuking   him  with    the  Words 

he 


,4      A  VINDICATION  OF  THE  AUTHOR 

he  I'ccins  to  apply  to  mc— /  fray  for  the  Forglvenefs  and  Convert 

(iaa  of  till  bad  M:r:,  I  will   allure  him,  that  I  pray  for /6//«  as  a 

Brother. 

I  have  only  one  WorJ  more  to  r.dd  :  I  have  prefumed  to  appeal 
to  the  Public,  ill  a  Matter  indeed  that  little  concerns  it,  yet  per- 
Ijaps  of  feme  Moment  in  the  Confequence  and  Example.  But 
whatever  Neccflity  I  now  found  myfelf  under  of  not  fubmitting  to 
fo  f.ilfc  a  Ch.irge,  the  Public  need  not  be  under  Apprehenfions  that 
I  flinll  ever  give  them  a  fecond  Trouble  of  the  fame  Kind.  It 
muft  be  fomc  ftrange  Provocation  indeed  that  can  make  me  repeat 
it.  For  if  I  can  yor§-/Uf  Injuries  of  this  Kind,  it  is  fure  no  hard 
Tafk  to  delpife  them.  In  a  Word,  I  have  made  my  Defence  againft 
thcfc  Calumnies  now  once  for  all ;  and  my  Enemies  muft  pardon 
me,  if  I  decline  to  be  drawn  In,  into  a  Controverfy  of  this  Nature  ; 
or  to  be  drawn  of  from  the  Subjeft  I  have  comrtienced  in  Defence 
of  Revelation.  And,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  no  iinchrijfian  Treat- 
ment (hall  ever  make  me  languid  or  remifs  in  vindicating  the  Truth 
of  the  Chrijlian  Catife.  Whether  I  am  a  weak  Defender  of  Chrijii- 
an'uy  murt  be  fubmitted  to  the  Judgment  of  the  Public.  But  I  am 
perfuadcd  that  That  Public  will  fufpend  all  Severity  of  Judgment 
till  they  fee  the  whole  Performance  :  and  then,  I  hope,  thofe  who 
now  think  I  have  advanced  a  Paradox  that  cannot  be  fupported, 
will  be  of  another  Opinion.  But  if  it  fhould  not  be  my  good 
Fortune  to  make  out  my  Point  to  their  Satisfadion,  yet  I  (hould 
hope  they  will  pafs  a  more  equitable  Conftrudlion  on  the  Attempt 
than  the  Letter  Writer  has  thought  fit  to  do ;  and  make  all  favour- 
able Allowances  for  the  Newnefs  and  Difficulty  of  the  Subjeft, 
and  the  many  incidental  Points  touched  upon,  which  will,  I  hope, 
be  thought  by  all  Perfons  of  Equity,  Candor,  and  good  Learning] 
to  have  their  Ufe.  In  the  mean  Time,  I  can  fay  with  great  Truth, 
and,  I  hope  I  may  do  it  with  Modejiy,  that  wh^it  I  ofl^r  to  the 
1  ubhc  concerning  ^he  Divine  Legation  of  Mofis  Is  not  a  hafty  fud- 
<lci    Thought,  and  what  has  appeared  flattering  to  me  upon  its  firft 

Appearance 


Appearance  only;  as  fuch  Things  often  ftrike,  which,  upon  Review, 
give  no  Satisfiiidion.  But  this  has  been  long  the  Subjeft  of  my 
Thoughts;  often  laid  by,  and  then  again,  at  proper  Intervals,  re- 
fumed,  reviewed,  and  turned  on  all  Sides.  What  then  I  have  been 
in  no  Hafle  to  approve  after  carefully  weighing  and  examining  ^a;fry 
Part,  I  fhall  hope  the  equitable  Reader  will  be  in  no  Ilafte  to 
condemn  or  fufped:  while  he  has  feen  only  one. 


A  CRITICAL 


A 

CRITICAL    AND    PHILOSOPFIICAL 

COMMENTARY 

O    N 

Mr.     P  O  P  E's     essay     on     MAN. 

IN    WHICH    IS    CONTAINED 

A     VINDICATION  of  the  said  ESSAY 

From  the  Misrepresentations  of 

Mr.    D  E    R  E  S  N  E  L,    the    Frenc/j    Tranjlator, 

A  N  D      O  F 

Mr.     DECROUSAZ, 

ProfcfTor  of  Philofophy  and  Mathematics  in  the  Academy  of  Laufannr,  the  Commentator. 


^  Vide quam  iniquifunt  div'morum  munerum  cejiimatores  et'iam  quidam 
"  Professi  Sapientiam."     Sen. 


Vol.  VI.  D 


[    '9    ] 


WORTHY      FRIEND 


RALPH     ALLEN,     Esq, 


S  I  R, 

IG I V  E  myfelf  the  pleafure  of  converfing  with  you.  In  this 
Form  ;  as  I  fee  you  lefs  under  the  Idea  of  a  Patron,  than  of  a 
joint  Labourer  with  me  in  the  Service  of  Mankind.  For  while  I 
attempt  to  explain  the  Theory  of  this  divine  Philofophy  of  Univer- 
Jal  Benevolence,  you  illuftrate  it  by  your  Pradlce.  At  moil  there- 
fore I  can  but  offer  you  the  Essay  on  Man,  fet  in  a  jufl:  Light, 
as  a  Mirrour  for  your  Cabinet ;  where  you  may  behold  the  perfect 
Image  of  your  own  Mind  :  And  the  Works  of  this  Artill,  who  is 
beholden  only  to  T^ruth  for  their  Polifh  and  their  Luftre,  you  are 
too  well  acquainted  with  to  fufpe£t  them  of  Flattery,  To  preferve 
the  Luftre  of  this  Mirrour  was  the  fole  Purpofe  of  the  following 
Letters.  For  the  dull  Breath  of  Malice  had  attempted  to  defile  its 
Purity  ;  and,  by  ftaining  it  with  the  black  Imputation  of  Fatalijm, 
to  tarnifh  every  Virtue  it  refleded. 

It  hath  been  obferved  in  Phyjics,  that  Nature  never  gave  an  Ex- 
cellence,   but  (he  at  the  fame  time  produced  its  contrary,    with 
Qualities  peculiarly  adapted  to  its  Deftrudion.     As  we  fee  how 
this  ferves  the  wife  Ends  of  Providence,  by  keeping  us  in  that  State 
Da  of 


20  D  E  I-  K  N  C  E     OF    MR.     P  O  P  E, 

oilnftrfealon  and  Dcfendcnce  in  which  it  hath  plenfed  the  Author  of 
all  Things  to  place  us,  wc  need  not  be  much  furprifed  to  find 
the  hinc  Phicnoincnon  in  the  moral  World:  In  no  Inftance  more 
apparent  than  in  the  Dotlrine  of  Fate,  which,  ahnoft  coaeval 
with  the  Pra^ilce  of  ViirruE,  is  ytt  altogether  the  Ueftrudlion 
of  it. 

But  as  there  is  not  tliat  Decay,  nor  Degeneracy  of  Good,  in  the 
natural  as  in  the  moral  IVorld;  fb  neither  is  there  that  increafe  of 
E\'il.  I  i\y  this  chiefly  with  regard  to  the  Doctrine  of  Fate,  which 
hath  been  Hill  growing,  from  Age  to  Age,  in  Abfardity  and  Im- 
piety :  And  therefore  no  Wonder,  that  Virtue,  whofe  fpecific  Bane 
it  is,  fliould  proportionably  ikken  and  decline. 

Indeed,  it  flopped  not  till  it  became  hke  the  Tree  in  the  Chal- 
daans  Vifion,  which  reached  to  Heaven,  and  extended  over  the 
wh'jle  Earth ;  and  received  all  the  irrational  and  impure  Creation, 
Birds,  Bea/is,  and  Infcoh,  to  its  Shade  and  Shelter. 

To  confider  Fate  m  its  Growth  and  Progrefs,  it  divides  itfelf  into 
four  principal  Branches. 

The  ftrjl  and  earlieft  is  that  wliich  arofe  from  the  Grange  and 
prodigious  Events  in  the  Life  of  Man  :  Where  the  amazed  Be- 
holder obferving  the  Ends  of  human  Wifdom  fo  perpetually  defeated, 
even  when  fupported  by  the  likelieft  Means,  concluded  that  nothing 
Icfs  than  an  over-ruling  Fate  had  traverfed  his  well-conduded  De- 
ligns.  This  early  Conclufion  concerning  God's  Government  here, 
Uom  Obfervations  on  Civil  Events,  was  again  inferred  in  After- 
.!gcs,  by  anotiicr  Set  of  Men,  with  regard  to  his  Government  here- 
after, from  their  Contemplations  on  Religious ;  while,  from  an 
utter  Inability  to  penetrate  the  Dcfigns  of  Providence  in  its  par- 
tial Revelations  to  Mankind,  they  concluded  that  Fate  or  Pre- 
dejlination  had  determined  of  our  future,  as  well  as  prefent 
Happincfs.  Thefe,  which  are  only  different  Modifications  of  the 
fame  imaginary  Power,  may  be  called  the  popular  and  reh- 
Gious  Fate. 

The 


IN    ANSWER    TO    CROUSAZ.  21 

They^ro«rt' kind  arofe  from  a  fuppofed  moral  Influence  of  the 
heavenly  Bodies  :  founded  in  an  early  Superftltion  that  the  Hero-Gods 
had  migrated  into  Stnrs.  It  was  firft  underftood  to  be  confined 
to  Communities,  as  fuch  were  the  more  immediate  Care  of  thefe 
Heroes  while  living :  But  the  fame  Confiderations  which  produced 
the  firft  Species  of  Fate,  in  a  little  time,  extended  it  to  Particulars. 
And  this  is  the  civil  or  astrologic  Fate.  Hitherto,  Free-will 
was  only  curbed,  or  rendered  ufelefs.  To  annihilate  it  quite, 
needed  all  the  Power  of  Pbilofophy.  So  true  is  the  Obfervation, 
that  without  Philofophy  Man  can  hardly  become  either  thoroiif^hly 
abfurd  or.  miferable. 

The  Sobbiji^  in  his  profound  Inquiries  into  human  Nature,  and 
on  what  it  is  we  do,  when  we  judge,  deliberate,  and  refolve, 
came  at  length  to  this  fhort  Conclufion,  That  the  Mind  is  no  more 
than  a  Machine,  and  that  its  Operations  are  determined  in  the  fame 
Manner  that  a  Balance  is  inclined  by  its  Weights.  This  abfolute 
Neceffity  of  Man's  Anions  is  the  third  Species  of  Fate,  called  the 

PHILOSOPHIC. 

From  this,  to  the  lajl,  that  is  to  fay,  the  Neceflity  of  Gods, 
was  an  eafy  Step.  For  when,  from  the  very  Nature  of  Mind 
and  Will,  the  Philofopher  had  demonflrated  the  Abfurdity  of  Free- 
dom in  Man,  the  fame  Conclufion  would  hold  as  to  all  other  Beings 
whatfoever.     And  this  is  the  atheistic  Fate. 

Thefe,  Sir,  were  the  glorious  EfFeds  of  Pride:  which  our  in- 
comparable Friend,  with  fo  good  Reafon,  efteems  the  Source  of 
all  our  Mifery  and  Impiety.  The  Pride  of  accounting  for  the 
Wa\s  of  Providence  begot  the  two  firfl:  Species  :  and  the  Pride 
of  comprehending  the  EJfences  of  Things,  the  two  latter.  \t^h ! 
mifcra  mens  hominum,  quo  te  ¥  at  A  fapijjime  trahunt  I  In  the  Name: 
of  Paul,,  if  one  might  be  allowed  to  a(k,  What  Jlmll  deliver  us 
from  the  Body  of  this  Fate  ?  which  hangs  about  the  Soul  like 
that  Punifhment  of  the  ancient  Tyrant,  who  bound  dead  Bodies  to 
the  living.   I  anfvver,  the  Religion  of  Jesus  :  which  hath  intruded 

us 


,,  DEFENCE    OF    MR.    POPE, 

X,,  n.  clearly  in  the  Nature  of  M.«.  ns  in  the  Nature  of  G.^;  in 
,I,c  5./^>'/.  n->  well  as  i..  the  Objdl,  of  Worfhip.  A  IVorJlnp  found- 
ed as  Rcafon  aud  Confcience  tell  us  it  ought,  on  thefe  two  great 
I'riiuiplcs,  t!ic  Freedom  and  the  Weakness  of  Man.  The  firft, 
making  our  Approach  to  God  a  reasonable  Service  ;  the  latter, 
Go<rs  Approach  to  us  a  Covenant  of  Grace.  And  this,  Sir,  is 
tliat  ghrioHi  Go/pel,  which  you  are  not  afliamed  to  adore,  as  able 
to  put  to  Silence  the  Ignorance  offoolijh  Men. 

And,  in  faft,  the  Japlonabk  Reafoner  is  now  gone  over  to  the 
Caufc  of  Liberty  ;  but  ftill  true  to  his  overweening  Pride ^  is  gone 
over— in  the  other  Extreme.  Let  the  Fatallft  talk  what  he  pleafes 
of  the  Mind's  being  a  BMance\  if  its  Operations  be  mechanical, 
I  am  furc  it  is  more  like  a  Pendulum^  which,  when  well  leaded,  is 
incelTantly  fwinging  from  one  fide  to  the  other.  For  the  vain 
Reafoner  is  now  as  much  difpofed  to  deny  the  Weaknefi  of  the 
Mind,  as  before  to  deny  its  Freedom.  Hence  it  is,  we  fee  the 
Cbrijiian  Doarine  of  Grace  defpifed  and  laughed  at  ;  and  the 
Means  inAituted  by  its  Founder  for  obtaining  it,  as  impioufly  as  fo- 
phiftically,  explained  away.  Yet  without  human  Freedom  Religion 
in  general  is  a  Farce  ;  and  but  on  the  Truth  of  human  JVeaknefs,  the 
Religion  of  y^J,  a  Falfehood. 

With  regard  then  to  Free-will,  what  need  we  more  than  the 
Declaration  of  Religion  ?  The  fimple-minded  Man  naturally  fup- 
pofes  it ;  the  good  Man  feels  it ;  the  thinking  Man  underftands  it ; 
and  nothing  but  vain  Philojophy  holds  out  both  againft  Nature 
and  Grace:  Not  fo  openly  indeed  as  formerly;  but  flill  as  ob- 
ftinatcly.  The  ableft  Advocates  of  Neccffity  now  inveloping  it  in 
Sj^.ms  ;  and  infinuating  it  in  all  the  artful  Detours  of  what  they 
call  ^  fufficient  Reafon. 

None  have  gone  farther,  or  with  more  Succefs,  into  this  Con- 
trivance than  the  famous  Lf/^«/>z ;  who,  with  great  Parts  and  Ap- 
plication of  Mind,  had  an  immoderate  Ambition  of  becoming 
Founder  of  a  Seft.     He  firft  attempted  to  raife  a  Name,  like  the 

Heroes 


IN    ANSWER    TO    CROUSAZ.  23 

Heroes  of  old,  by  the  Invafion  of  another's  Property  :  But  being 
detefled  and  repulfed,  he  turned  hu-nfelf  to  Invention;  and  framed 
an  Hypoth.Jis  m  direfl  Oppofition  to  that  theory  which  he  before 
feemed  willing  to  have  made  his  own.  This  Hypothefts,  founded 
in  a  refined  Fatalifm,  he  chofe  to  deliver  by  Hints  only,  and  in 
piece- meal ;  which,  at  the  fame  time  that  it  gave  his  Scheme  an 
Air  of  Depth  and  Myflery,  kept  its  Abfurdities  from  being  obferved. 
So  that  it  fooa  made  its  Fortune  amongft  the  German  Wits  ;  who 
were  not  out  of  their  way  when  they  took  the  fame  deep  and 
cloudy  Road  with  their  Mafter.  It  was  no  Wonder  then,  that  this 
fhould  raife  a  Jealoufy  in  the  Advocates  of  Religion,  and  make  the 
warmer  fort  of  them  (not  the  bcft  at  a  charitable  Diflindlion,  though 
great  Logicians)  to  miftake  their  Friends  for  their  Enemies. 

Amongft  other  Fellies  of  this  kind,  it  brought  down  a  Storm  of 
Calumny  on  the  Essay  on  Man;  and,  in  its  Turn,  occafioned 
this  Vindication  of  our  inimitable  Poet.  A  (hort,  and  an  eafy  Talk. 
For  my  Point,  you  know.  Sir,  was  not  to  expofe  the  Abjurdlty  of 
Fate  ;  but  to  prove  the  Ejay  free  from  a  Dodlrine,  which  my  Ad- 
verfary  and  I  agreed  to  be  an  Abfurdity,  But  if  any  one,  confid- 
ing in  the  Tricks  of  Sophiftry  under  the  cloudy  Conveyance  of 
Metaphyfics,  would  difpute  this  Point  with  us ;  1  fhall  give  up  my 
Share  of  him  to  my  Adverfary,  and  leave  him  entirely  to  tiie 
Mercy  of  his  Logic.  All  the  Anfwer  he  muft  expe£l  from  me, 
is  of  that  kind  with  the  Philofopher's,  who,  difputing  with  one 
who  denied  local  Motion,  only  ufed  his  Legs,  and  walked  out  of 
his  Company  :  That  is  to  fay,  I  fhall  decline  his  Challenge  merely 
for  the  Exercife  of  my  Freedom.  And  indeed,  what  other  Anfwer 
does  he  deferve,  who  refufes  to  acquiefce  in  that  Consciousness  of 
Freedom  which  every  plain  Man  has,  on  refledting  upon  what  pafles 
in  his  Mind  when  he  thinks  and  a£ls  ? 

But  yet,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  remark  the  Nature  of  this 
Confcioufnefs  ;  from  which  alone  (as  I  think,  Sir,  I  have  had  the 
Pleafure  to  obferve  to  you  in  our  Converfation  on  thefe  Subjcds) 

Freedom 


24.  DEFENCE     OF     MR.     P  O  P  F, 

Frcedo-n  of  iVlll  mny  be  denionftrafed  to  all  but  the  downright 
Athcifi:.  It  will,  I  Tuppofe,  be  allowed  to  be  an  Imprefilon  on  the 
Mind,  made  by  Rifuxion,  as  ftroiig  as  any  of  thofe  made  by  Scn- 
fjtion.  And  lure  he  muft  be  as  blind  as  even  blind  Fate  can 
make  him,  who  do.^s  not  fee  thus  far  at  lealL  So  that  the  oidy 
qutllion  is,  whtthcr  it  be,  like  them,  (ubjetSl  to  D-Ccption  ?  I 
anfwer,  No.  And  hift,  for  a  natural  Reafon,  As  the  Organs  cf 
Senfe  are  not  cn^ployed  to  convey  the  Intelligence  :  But  fecondly 
and  principally,  for  a  mor.tl  one,  As  there  would  be  nothing  left 
to  redrefs  the  wrong  Reprcfentation.  For,  Reafon,  which  per- 
forms this  Office  in  the  falfe  Imprejfions  of  Senje^  is  the  very  Fa- 
culty employed  in  making  the  Imprcjions  of  Rif,ex:on.  Were  thcfe 
therefore  liable  to  the  fame  Kind  of  Deception,  we  fhould  be  un- 
avoidably led  into  and  kept  in  Error  by  the  natural  Frame  and 
Conftitution  of  Things.  Brt  as  this  would  refleil  on  the  Author 
of  Nature,  no  Theift,  I  prefume,  will  be  inclined  to  admit  the 
Confequence.  If  the  Fatali/l  fliould  reply,  that  Renfon,  when  well 
exercijed  and  refned,  does  here,  as  in  the  falfe  Imprc/Jions  of  Senfe, 
lay  open  the  Delufion  ;  this,  I  mud  tell  him,  is  the  very  Folly 
^ve  complain  of:  That,  when  Things  are  fubmitted  to  the  Arbitre- 
ment  of  Reafon,  her  Award  fliould  be  rejeded  while  ftandlng  in 
the  Road  of  Nature,  with  all  her  Powers  and  Faculties  entire  ; 
and  not  thought  worthy  to  be  heard,  till  made  giddy  la  the  airy 
Heights  of  Metapbyfcs,  and  racked  and  tortured  by  all  the  Engines 
of  Sophiftry :  In  a  word,  when  Reafon  is  no  more  herfelf;  but 
{peaks  as  her  Keepers  and  Tormentors  didate. 

However,  it  Is  not  the  looking  within  only,  that  affures  the 
Thelfl  of  his  Freedom.  What  he  may  obferve  abroad  of  the  horrid 
Mifchiefs  and  Abfurditles  arifing  from  the  DoSlrine  of  Fate,  will 
fully  convince  him  of  this  Truth.  It  fubverts  and  atniihilates  all 
Religion:  For  the  Belief  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments,  without 
which  no  Religion  can  fubfift,  is  founded  on  the  Principle  of  Man's 
being  an  accountable  Creature  ;  but  when  Freedom  of  Will  is  want- 
ing, 


IN    ANSWER    TO    CROUSAZ.  25 

ing,  Man  Is  no  more  fo  than  a  Clock  or  Organ.  It  is  likewife 
highly  Injurious  to  Society  :  For  whoever  thinks  hlmfclf  no  longec 
in  his  own  Power,  will  be  naturally  inclined  to  give  the  Reins  ta 
his  Paffions,  as  it  is  lubmitting  to  that  Fate  which  muft  at  laft  ab- 
folutely  turn  and  dlreiSl  them. 

But,  after  all,  the  moft  powerful  Argument  ioT  Freedom^  I  confefs^ 
Sir,  is  fuch  a  Life  as  yours.  Of  which,  though  I  could  fay  much^ 
and  with  Pleafure,  I  will  only  fay  that  it  has  made  me,  in  common 
with  every  one  who  knows  you. 


Tour  obliged^ 

Tour  affe^ionatey  and 

Tour  faithful  Servant  ^ 

May  18,   1741. 

W.  WARBURTON. 


Vol.  VI.  E  PR  E- 


C  ^:  ] 


R         E        F        A       C       E. 


THERE  are  two  forts  of  Writers,  I  mean  the  Bigot  and  the 
Free-thinker,  that  every  honeft  Man  in  iiis  Heart  efteems 
no  better  than  the  Pefts  of  Society ;  as  they  are  manifeflly  the  Bane 
of  Literature  and  Religion.  And  whoever  efFedlually  endeavours  to. 
ferve  either  of  Thefe,  is  fure  immediately  to  offend  both  of  Thofe. 
For,  the  Advancement  of  Literature  is  as  favourable  to  true  Piety, 
as  it  is  fatal  to  Superjlition  ;  and  the  Advancement  of  Rehgion  as  pro- 
pitious to  real  Knowledge  as  difcrediting  to  vain  Science, 

The  Author  of  the  following  Letters,  who  hath  aimed  at  leafl:  to 
do  this  Service,  by  his  Writings,  regarding  thefe  two  forts  of  Men^ 
as  the  irreconclleable  Enemies  of  his  delign,  began  without  any 
Ceremony  (for  he  was  not  difpofed,  for  their  Sake,  to  go  about)  to 
break  through  thofe  lumpifti  impediments  they  had  thrown  acrofs 
the  Road  of  Truth  ;  and  laboured  to  clear  the  way,  not  only  for 
himfelf,  but  for  all  who  were  difpofed  to  follow  him.  In  which 
it  fared  with  him  as  it  fometimes  happens  to  thofe  who  undertake 
to  remove  a  public  Nuifance  for  the  Benefit  of  their  Neighbourhood, 
where  the  nicer  Nofes  hold  themftlves  offended  even  in  the  Service 
thus  undefervedly  rendered  to  them.  For  notwithftanding  our 
Author  hath  taken  all  Opportunities,  and  even  fought  out  Occafions 
to  celebrate  every  Writer,  living  or  dead,  who  was  any  way  re- 
fpedable  for  Knowledge,  Virtue,  or  Piety,  in  whatever  Party,  Seft, 
or  Rehgion,  he  was  found,  efpecially  fuch  as  he  had  the  Misfortune 
to  dlffent  from,  and  this  fometimes  with  fo  liberal  a  hand  as  to  give 
offence  on  that  fide  likewife  ;  though  he  hath  done  this,  1  fay,  yet 
E  2  having. 


zi         VINDICATION     OF    MR.    POPE. 

having,  tor  the  Reafons  above,  declared  eternal  War  with  BIgofry 
and  Free-thinking,  tlie  ftrong,  yet  luicere  Colours  m  which  he  hath 
drawn  the  Learning,  Senfe,  Candour,  and  Truth  of  thofe  Subjefls 
in  which  thcfe  noble  Qualities  are  mofl:  eminent,  have  been  cen- 
fured  as  Infolence  and  Satire,  and  a  Tranfgreffion  of  all  the  bounds 
of  Civility  and  Decorum.  But  he  will  not  be  eafily  induced,  by 
the  Clamours  of  the  falfely  Delicate,  to  betray  the  Interefts  of  all 
that  is  good  and  valuable  amongft  Men,  in  complaifance  to  their 
Notions  of  Politenefs.  'Tis  no  time  to  ftand  upon  ceremony  when 
Rtligion  is  ftruggling  for  Life;  when  the  whole  Head  is  Jick,  and 
the  whole  Heart  faint. 

Tiie  Bigot,  who,  between  a  corrupt  Will,  and  a  narrow  Under- 
ftanding,  imputes  odious  Defigns  to  his  Adverfaries,  and  impious 
Confequences  to  their  Opinions,  is  not,  I  fuppofe,  to  be  compli- 
mented, either  into  Senfe  or  Honefty.  The  Writer  here  confuted  is 
amongft  the  chief  of  them.  And  it  is  not  impoffible  but  the  recent 
Memory  of  the  like  Ufage  our  Author  himfelf  met  with  from  others 
of  the  fame  leaven,  might  give  him  a  quicker  Seufe  and  Wronger  Re- 
Icntment  of  the  Injury  done  his  Neighbour. 

As  for  the  Tribe  of  Free-thinkers,  Toland,  Tindal,  Collins,  Coward, 
Blount,  Strutt,  Chub,  Dudgeon,  Morgan,  Tillard,  and  their  Fellows, 
the  mortal  Foes  both  of  Rcafou  and  Religion,  injured  Wit  as  well 
as  Virtue,  by  the  Mouth  of  their  happieft  Advocate  and  Favourite, 
long  ago  called  out  for  Vengeance  on  them : 

— The  Licence  of  a  following  Reign 
Did  all  the  Dregs  of  bold  Socinus  drain  ; 
Then  unbelieving  Priefts  reform'd  the  Nation, 
And  taught  -more  pleafant  Methods  of  Salvation  ; 
Where  Heaven's  free  Subjeas  might  their  Rights  diipute, 
Left  God  himfelf  (hould  fsem  too  abfolute, 
Encourag'd  thus,  Wit's  Titans  brav'd  the  Skies, 
And  the  Prcfs  groan'd  with  licens'd  Blalphemies. 
TheJ'e  Monjlers,  Critics y  with  your  Darts  engage. 
Here  point  your  T:bunder,  and  exhaujl  vcur  Rage  I 

A  COM- 


[  29  ] 


COMMENTARY 


O    N 


Mr.      POPE'S      ESSAY      on      MAN. 


LETTER    I. 

WH  E  N  a  great  Genius,  whofe  Writings  have  afForded  the 
World  much  Pleafure  and  Inftruftion,  happens  to  be  en- 
vioufly  attacked  and  falfely  accufed,  it  is  natural  to  think,  that  a 
Senfe  of  Gratitude  due  from  Readers  fo  agreeably  obliged,  or  a 
Senfe  of  that  Honour  refulting  to  our  Country  from  fuch  a  Wri- 
ter, (hould  raife  a  general  Indignation.  But  every  Day's  Expe- 
perience  fhews  ns  the  very  contrary.  Some  take  a  malignant  Satif- 
faaion  in  the  Attack  ;  others,  a  foolifh  Pleafure  in  a  literary  Con- 
flid  ;  and  the  greater  Part  look  on  with  an  abfolute  Indifference. 

Mr.  Be  Croufazs  Remarks  *  on  Mr.  Papers  EJJay  en  Man,  feen 
in  part,  through  the  deceitful  Medium  of  a  French  Tranflation, 

*  They  are  contained  in  two  feverat  Books,  the  one  intituled,  Examcn  de  VEffin  dc  Mr. 
Pope  ;  i  Laufanne,  1737.  The  other,  Commentaire  fur  la  TraduSiion  en  vers  de  M.  PAbbc 
BuRefnddel'Effai  dt  Mr.  P  ope  fur  l' Homme;    a  Geneve,   1738.; 

have 


30  A     COMMENTARY    ON 

liavc  juft  fallen  Into  my  Hands.  As  thofe  Remarks  appear  to  me 
very  gmuiidlcfs  and  unjiift,  I  thovight  fo  much  due  to  Truth,  as 
to  vindicate  our  Great  Countryman  from  hb  Cenfure. 

The  principal  Objea  therefore  of  this  Vindication  fhall  be,  to 
give  the  Reader  a  fair  and  jufl  Idea  of  the  2^^rt/5«/«^  oi  th^t  EJ'ay, 
fo  egrcgioufly  mifreprefcated  ;  in  which  I  fliall  not  confider  it  as  a 
iVw  (for  it  ftands  in  no  need  of  the  Licence  of  fuch  kind  ot  Works 
to  defend  it)  but  as  a  S};/Iem  of  PbUofophy ;  and  content  myfelf 
with  a  plain  Reprefentation  of  the  Sobriety,  Force,  and  Conne<ft:ioa 
of  that  Reafonhig. 

I  fliall  begin  with  the  firft  Epiflle.  The  opening  of  which,  in 
fifteen  Lines,  Is  taken  up  In  giving  an  Account  of  his  Subject; 
which  he  fliews  us  (agreeably  to  the  Title)  Is  An  Essay  on  Man, 
or  a  Philofophical  Inquiry  into  his  Nature^  and  jEW,  his  FaJJions, 
and  Purfuits : 

A  mighty  Maze  ! — but  not  without  a  Plan, 

as  Mr.  DeCroufiz  and  I  have  found  It,  between  us.  The  next  Line 
tells  us  with  what  Defign  he  wrote,  viz. 

To  vindicate  the  Ways  of  God  to  Man. 

The  Men  he  writes  againfl  he  hath  frequently  Informed  us  are 
fuch,  as 

Weigh  their  Opinion  againfl  Providence.     1.  iiq. 
Such  as, 

—  cry.  If  Man's  unhappy,  God's  unjuft.     1.  114. 
Such  as  fall  Into  the  Notion, 

That  Vice  and  Virtue  there  is  none  at  all.  Ep.  II.  I.  202. 
This  occafioneth  the  Poet  to  divide  his  Vindication  of  the  Ways  of 
God  Into  fwo  Parts.  In  the/r/?  of  which  he  gives  dire^  An- 
fwers  to  thofe  Objedlons  which  libertine  Men,  on  a  View  of  the 
Diforders  arifing  from  the  Perverfity  of  the  human  Will,  have  in- 
tended 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON     MAN.  31 

tended  againft  Providence  :  And,  in  the  fecond,  he  obviates  all  thofe 
Objecftions,  by  a  true  Delineation  of  human  Nature,  or  a  gefieral 
but  exa£l  MaJ>  oj Man;  which  thefe  Objedors  cither  not  knowing, 
or  miftaking,  or  elfe  leaving  (for  the  mad  Purfuit  of  vietaphyjical 
Entities)  have  loft  and  bewildered  themfelves  in  a  thoufand  foolifli 
Complaints  againft  Providence.  Thefrjl  Rpijlle  is  employed  in  the 
Management  of  th.&  Jirfi  part  of  this  Difpute  ;  and  the  three  fol- 
lowing in  the  Management  of  the  fecorid.  So  that  the  whole  con- 
ftitutes  a  complete  Effay  on  Man^  written  for  the  beft  Purpofe,  to 
vindicate  the  Ways  of  God. 

The  Poet  therefore  having  enounced  his  Suhjedi,  his  End  of  IFrit- 
i'ng,  and  the  ^ality  of  his  Adverfaries,  proceeds  [from  1.  16  to  23,] 
to  inftrudl  w^from  whence  he  intends  to  draw  his  Arguments  for  their 
Confutation  ;  namely,  from  the  vifible  Thingi  of  God,  in  this  Syftem, 
to  demonftrate  the  invifibk  Things  of  God,  his  eternal  Power  and 
God-head:  And  why  ;  becaufe  we  can  reafon  only  from  what  we  know, 
and  we  know  no  more  of  Man  than  what  we  fee  of  his  Station 
here  ;  no  more  of  God  than  what  we  fee  of  his  Difpenfations  to 
Man  in  this  Station  ;  therefore 

Thro'  Worlds  unnumber'd  though  the  God  be  known, 

'Tis  ours  to  trace  him  only  in  our  own  *. 

This  naturally  leads  the  Poet  to  exprobrate  the  miferable  Folly  and 
Impiety  of  pretending  to  pry  into,  and  call  ia  queftion,  the  profound 
Difpenfations  of  Providence  :  Which  reproof  contains  [from  1.  22 
to  43]  the  moft  fublime  Defcription  of  the  Omnifcience  of  God, 
and  the  miferable  Blindnefs  and  Prefumptlon  of  Man. 

Prefumptuous  Man  !   the  Reafon  would'ft  thou  find 

Why  form'd  fo  weak,  fo  little,  and  fo  blind  ? 

Firft,  if  thou  canft,  the  harder  Reafon  guefs 

Why  form'd  no  weaker,  blinder,  and  no  lefs  ? 

*  Hunc  cognofcimus  folummodo  per  Proprietates  fiias  et  Attributa,  ct  per  fapientiil!- 
mas  et  optimas  rerum  ftniduras  et  caufas  finales,  Newtotii  Frincipia  Schol.  gener. 
fub  finem. 

Afk 


32  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

Afk  of  thy  Mother  Earth,  why  Oaks  are  made^ 
Taller  or  ftrotigcr  than  the  Weeds  they  fliade  I 
Or  alk  of  yonder  argent  Fields  above, 
Why  Jove's  Satellites  are  lefs  than  Jove? 
In  the  four  laft  Lines,  the  Poet  has  joined  the  utmoft  Beauty  of 
Argumentation  to  the  Sublimity  of  Thought ;  where  the  fimilar  In- 
ftances,  propofed  for  their  Examination,  fhew  as  well  the  Mfurdity 
of  their  Complaints  againft  Order,  as  the  Fruit lefsmfs  of  their  En- 
quiries into  the  Arcana  of  the  Godhead. 

So  far  his  modeft  and  fober  Introdutlion :  In  which  he  truly  ob- 
fcrves,  that  no  Wifdom  lefs  than  omnifclenC 

Can  tell  why  Heav'n  has  made  us  as  we  are. 
Yet  though  we  can  never  difcover  the  particular  Reafons  for  this 
Mode  of  our  Exiftence,  we  may  be  affured  in  general  that  it  is  right : 
For  now  entering  upon  his  Argument,  he  lays  down  this  fclf- 
evidcnt  Propofuion  as  the  Foundation  of  bis  Tbejis,  which  he  rea- 
Ibnably  fuppofes  will  be  allowed  him  :  That  of  all  pqffible  Sypms, 
'infinite  Wifdom  hath  formed  the  bft ;  [1.  43>  44-]  From  hence  he 
draws  two  Confequences. 

I.  Thtfrji  [from  1.  44  to  51.]  lo,  that  as  the  befl:  Syfl:em  cannot 
but  be  fuch  a  one  as  hath  no  inconnc6led  Void;  fuch  a  one  in  which 
there  is  a  perfeft  Coherence  and  gradual  Subordination  in  all  its  Parts ; 
there  muft  needs  be,  in  fome  part  or  other  of  the  Scale  of  Life  and 
SenCe,  fuch  a  Creature  as  Man;  which  reduces  the  Difpute  to  this 
abfurd  Queftion,  Whether  God  has  placed  him  wrong? 

It  being  fhewu  that  MAN,  the  SubjeEl  of  his  Inquiry^  has  a  ne- 
ceffary  Place  in  fuch  a  Syftem  as  this  is  confeffed  to  be  :  And  it 
being  evident  that  the  Abufe  of  Free-will,  from  whence  proceeds 
all  moral  Evil,  is  the  certain  Effed  of  fuch  a  Creature's  Exiftence  ; 
the  next  Queftion  will  be,  how  thefe  Evils  can  be  accounted  for, 
confiftently  with  the  Idea  we  have  of  God's  Attributes  ?    Therefore, 

2.  The  fecond  Confequence  he  draws  from  his  Principle,  That 
of  all  pojibk  Svflems,  infinite  Wifdom  has  formed  the  befi,    is,    that 

whatever 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  3^ 

whatever  is  wrong  la  our  private  Syftem,  is  right,  as  relative  to  the 
whole  [1.  50  to  53.] 

Refpefting  Man,  whatever  wrong  we  call, 

Majy  mujl  be  right,  as  relative  to  All. 

That  it  may,  he  proves  [from  1.  52  to  61.]  by  (hewing  in  what 
confifts  the  Difference  between  the  fyJlemaUc  Works  of  God  and 
thole  of  Man,  r/'s.  that,  in  the  A;//tT,  a  thoufand  Movements  fcarce 
gain  one  Purpofe;  \i\X}i\Q former^  one  Movement  gains  many  Purpofes. 
So  that 

— Man,  who  here  feems  principal  alone. 

Perhaps  afts  fecond  to  fome  Sphere  unknown. 
And  aSling  thus,  the  Appearances  of  zvrong  in  the  particular  Syftcm 
may  be  right  in  the  iinivcrfal :  For, 

'Tis  but  a  Part  we  fee,  and  not  a  Whole. 

— That  it  mnjl^  the  whole  body  of  this  Epiflle  is  employed  to  il- 
luftrate  and  Inforce.  T\i\x^  partial  Evil  is  univerfal  Good,  and  thus 
Providence  is  fairly  acquitted. 

From  all  this  he  draws  a  general  Conclufion  [from  1.  60  to  87,] 
that,  as  what  had  been  faid  is  fufficient  to  vindicate  the  Ways  of 
Providence,  Man  (liould  reft  fubmiffive  and  content,  and  confefs 
every  Thing  to  be  dlfpofed  for  the  beft ;  that  to  pretend  to  Inquire 
into  the  Manner  how  God  conducts  this  wonderful  Scheme  to  its 
Completion,  is  as  abfurd  as  to  Imagine  that  the  Horfe  and  Ox  fhall 
ever  come  to  comprehend  why  they  undergo  fuch  different  Manage 
and  Fortunes  in  the  Hand  of  Man ;  nay,  that  fuch  Knowledge,  if 
communicated,  would  be  even  pernicious  to  Man,  and  make  him 
negle£l  or  dejert  his  Duty  here. 

Heav'n  from  all  Creatures  hides  the  Book  of  Fate, 
.   All  but  the  Page  prefcrlb'd,  the  prefent  State, 

From  Brutes  what  Men,  from  Men  what  Spirits  know. 

Or  who  would  Cuffer  Being  here  helow  ? 

Vol.  VI.  F  This 


34  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

Thij  lie  illiiftrates  by  an  Inftaiice  in  the  Lamb,  which  is  happy 
in  not  knowing  the  Fate  that  attends  it  from  the  Hand  of  the 
Butcher  ;  rnd  from  thence  takes  occafion  to  obferve,  that  God  is 
tlie  equal  M.ifter  of  all  his  Creatures,  and  provides  for  the  proper 
Happinefs  of  each  Being. 

Wlio  fees  with  equal  Eye,  as  God  of  all, 

A  Hero  perifli,  or  a  Sparrow  fall  *. 

But  now  the  Objedor  is  fuppofed  to  put  in,  and  fay;  "  You  tell 
*«  us  indeed,  that  all  things  will  turn  out  for  Good  ;  but  we  fee 
"  ourfelves  furrounded  with  prefent  Evil  ;  and  yet  you  forbid  us 
'*  all  Inquiry  into  the  Manner  how  we  are  to  be  extricated ;  and 
*'  in  a  Word,  leave  us  in  a  very  difconfolate  Condition."  Not  fo, 
replies  the  Poet  [from  1.  86  to  95.]  you  may  reafonably,  if  you  fo 
pleafe,  receive  much  comfort  from  the  Hope  of  a  happy  Futurity ; 
a  Hope  given  us  by  God  himfelf  for  this  very  Purpofe,  as  an  Earned: 
of  that  Blifs,  which  here  indeed  perpetually  flies  us,  but  is  referved 
for  the  good  Man  hereafter. 

What  future  Blifs  he  gives  not  thee  to  know. 

But  gives  that  Ho^e  to  be  thy  Blefling  now. 

H^pe  fprings  eternal  in  the  human  Breaft, 

Man  never  h,  but  always  to  be  bleft. 

The  Soul  uneafy,  and  confin'd  from  home, 

Refts  and  expatiates  in  a  Life  to  come. 

Now  the  Reafon  why  the  Poet  chufes  to  infift  on  this  Proof  of 
a  future  State  in  Preference  to  others,  I  conceive,  is  in  order  to 
give  his  Syftem  (which  is  founded  in  a  fublime  and  improved 
Phion'ifmJ  the  utmoft  Grace  of  Uniformity.  For  we  know  this 
Hope  was  P/a/o'j  peculiar  Argument  for  a  future  Stte  ;  and  the 
Words  here  employed,  The  Soul  uneafy,  &c.  his  peculiar  Expref- 
lion  :  We  have  feen  the  Argument  illuftrated  with  great  Force  of 
Reafoning,  by  our  moft  eminent  modern  Divines  :  But  no  where 

*  Matt.  X.  29. 

flronger 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  35 

Wronger  urged  than  by  our  Poet,  in  this  Ejjay,  He  fays  here,  ia 
exprcls  Terms,  Tlx-^X.  Gcd  gave  us  Hope  to  fupply  that  future  BUfs 
nvhich  he  at  prefent  keeps  hid  from  us.  In  his  2d  Ep.  1.  264.  he  goes 
ftlll  farther,  and  fays,  this  Hope  quits  us  not  even  at  Death,  when 
every  Thing  mortal  drops  from  us. 

Hope  travels  through,  nor  quits  us  when  we  die. 

And,  in  the  4th  Epiftle  he  fhews  Iiow  the  fame  Hope  is  a  cer- 
tain Proof  of  a  future  State,  from  the  Confideration  of  God's  giving 
Man  no  Appetite  in  vain,  or  what  he  did  not  intend  fhould  be  fa- 
tisfied ;  (which  is  Plato's  great  Argument  for  a  future  State.)  For, 
deicribing  the  Condition  of  the  good  Man,  he  breaks  out  into  thefe 
rapturous  Strains  : 

For  him  alone  Hope  leads  from  Goal  to  Goal, 

And  opens  flill,  and  opens  on  his  Soul  ; 

Till,  lengthen'd  on  to  Faith,  and  unconfin'd, 

It  pours  the  Blifs,  that  fills  up  all  the  Mind. 

He  fees,  why  Nature  plants  in  Man  alone 

Hope  of  known  Blifs,  and  Faith  in  Blifs  unknown  : 

Nature,  whofc  Didlates  to  no  other  Kind 

Are  giv'n  in  vain,  but  what  they  feek  they  find.  1.  331,  ct  fcq. 

It  is  only  for  the  good  Man,  he  tells  us,  that  Hope  leads  from 
Goal  to  Goal,  (^c.  It  would  be  ftrange  indeed  then,  if  it  fliould 
be  a  Delufion. 

But  it  hath  been  objedled,  that  the  Syferti  of  the  bejl  weakens  the 
other  natural  Arguments  for  a  future  State,  becaufe  if  the  Evils, 
which  good  Men  fufFer,  promote  the  Benefit  of  the  whole,  then 
every  thing  is  here  in  order ;  and  nothing  amifs  that  wants  to  be 
fet  right  :  Nor  has  the  good  Man  any  reafon  to  expedl  a  Repara- 
tlon,  when  the  Evils  he  fufFered  had  fuch  a  Tendency.  To  this  we 
reply,  that  the  Syjiem  of  the  bef  is  fo  far  from  weakening  thofe 
natural  Arguments,  that  it  flrengthens  and  fiipports  them.  To 
confider  it  a  little,  if  thofe  Evils  to  which  good  Men  are  fubjed  be 
F  2  mere 


^^6  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

mere  Diforihrs^  without  any  Tendency  to  the  greater  Good  of  the 
Whole,  tlien,  thougli  we  nnifl:  indeed  conclude  that  they  will 
hcrcaltcr  be  let  right,  yet  this  View  of  Things,  reprefenting  God 
as  luiVering  Diforders  for  no  other  Purpofe  tiian  to  fet  them  right, 
gives  us  a  very  low  Idea  of  the  divine  Wlfdom.  But  if  thofs 
Evils  (according  to  the  Sv/Iem  of  the  hijl)  contribute  to  the  greater 
Perfoflion  of  the  Whole,  a  Reafon  may  be  then  given  for  their 
Permiffion,  and  fuch  a  one  as  fupports  our  Idea  of  Divine  Wifdbm 
to  the  higheft  religious  Purpofes.  Then,  as  to  the  good  Man's 
Hopes  of  a  Retribution,  tliole  ftill  remain  in  their  original  Force. 
For  our  Idea  of  God's  Juflice,  and  how  far  that  Juftice  is  engaged 
to  a  Retribution,  is  exaftlj  and  invariably  the  fame  on  either  Hy- 
pothecs. For  though  the  SyJIem  of  the  beji  fuppofes  that  the  £w'A 
ibemjelves  will  be  fully  compenfated  by  the  Cood  they  produce  to 
the  fr&olc,  yet  this  is  fb  far  from  fuppofing  that  Particulars  fhall 
fuffer  for  z  general  Good,  that  it  is  eflential  to  this  SyJIem,  to  con- 
clude that,  at  the  Completion  of  Things,  when  the  whole  is  arrived 
to  the  State  of  utmofl:  Perfection,  particular  and  ufiiverfal  Good  flialL 
coincide. 

Such  is  the  World's  great  Harmony,  that  Tprings 

From  Union,  .Order,  full  Confent  of  Things ; 

Where y/W/  and  great,  whe^Q  weak  ?ind  mighty,  made 

Toferve  notfufer,Jlrengthen  not  invade. 

Ep.  iii.  1.  296,  et  feq. 
Which  Coincidence  can  never  be  without  a  retribution  to  good  Men 
for  the  Evils  fufFered  here  below. 

To  return  then  to  the  Poet's  Argument,  he,  as  we  faid,  bids 
Man  comfort  himfelf  with  Expedation  of  future  Happinefs,  and 
fhews  him  that  this  Hope  is  an  Earaeft  of  it  :  But  firft  &f  all  puts 
in  one  very  neceffary  Caution, 

Hope  humbly  then,  with  trembling  Pinions  foar. 
And  provoked  at  thofe  Mifcreants,  whom  he  afterwards  [Ep.  3. 
1.262.]  defcribes  as  hyi'mn^  Hell  on  Spite,  and  Heaven  on  Pride, 

he 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  37 

he  upbraids  them  [from  1.9410  109.]  with  the  Example  of  the 
fooK  Indan,  to  whom  alfo  Nature  hath  given  this  common  Hope  of 
Mankind.  But  though  his  untutored  Mind  had  betrayed  him  inta 
many  cliildifh  Fancies  concerning  the  Nature  of  that  future  State^ 
yet  he  is  fo  hv  from  excluding  any  Part  of  his  own  Species  (a  Vice 
which  could  proceed  only  from  vain  Science,  -which piiffeih  up)  that 
he  humanely  admits  cm  tn  his  faithful  Dog  to  bear  him  Company. 

And  then  [from  1.  ic8  to  119.]  fhews  them,  that  Complaints 
r.galnft  the  ejiablifed  Order  of  Things,  begin  in  the  highefl  Abfurdity 
from  mlfiipplied  Reafon  and  Foiver,  and  end  in  X.\\c  highefl  Impiety^ 
in  an  Attempt  to  degrade  the  God  of  Heaven,  and  affume  his 
Place. 

Go  wifer  thou,  and  in  thy  Scale  of  Senfe 

Weigh  thy  Opinion  againfl:  Providence  : 

Dejlroy  all  Creatures  for  thy  Sport  or  Guft, 

Yet  cry,  if  Man's  unhappy,  God's  unjuf  ; 

If  Man  alone  ingrofs  not  Heaven''s  high  Care, 

Alone  made  PerfcH  here,  Immortal  there. 
That  is,  be  made  God,  ivho  only  is  PerfeSi  and  hath  Immortality  ; 
To  which  Senfe  the  Lines  immediately  following  confine  us  % 

Snatch  from  his  Hand  the  Balance  and  the  Rod, 

Rejudge  his  Juftice,   be  the  God  of  God. 

From  thefe  Men,  the  Poet  turns  to  his  Friend,  and  [from  I.  ii8> 
to  137.]  remarks  that  the  Ground  of  all  this  Extravagance  is  Pride  j. 
which,  more  or  lefs,  infefts  the  whole  Species  : — fliews  the  ill  Ef-> 
feds  of  it,  in  the  Cafe  of  the  fallen  Angels  ;  and  obferves,  that 
even  wiping  to  invert  the  Laws  of  Order  is  a  lower  Species  of  their 
Crime  : — then  brings  an  Inftance  of  one  of  the  EfFefts  of  Pride,, 
which  is  the  Folly  of  thinking  every  thing  made  folely  for  the  \J{q. 
of  Man  ;  without  the  lead  regard  to  any  other -of  God's  Ci-eatures. 
A(k  for  what  End  the  heavenly  Bodies  fhtne. 
Earth  for  whofe  Ufe  \  Pride  anfwers,  'Tis  for  mine* 

For 


.S  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

For  me,  kind  Nature  wakes  her  genial  Power, 
Suckles  cacli  Herb,  and  fpreads  out  ev'ry  Flower  ; 
Annual  for /w^  the  Grape,  theRofe,  renew 
The  Juice  nc£lareous,  and  the  balmy  Dew  ; 
Yorme,  the  Mine  a  thoufandTreafures  brings. 
For  me.  Health  guflies  from  a  thoufand  Springs ; 
Seas  roll  to  waft  me.  Suns  to  light  me  rife. 
My  Footftool,  Earth  ;  my  Canopy,  the  Skies. 

The  Ridicule  of  imagining  the  greater  Portions  of  the  material 
Syftem  were  folely  for  the  Ufe  of  Man,  Philofophy  has  fufficiently 
expofed  :  And  Common  Senfe,  as  the  Poet  ftiews,  Inflrufts  us  to 
know  that  our  Fellow  Creatures,  placed  by  Providence  the  joint  In- 
habitants of  this  Globe,  are  defigned  by  Providence  to  be  joint 
Sharers  with  us  of  its  bleffings. 

Has  God,  thou  Fool  !  work'd  folely  for  thy  Good, 

Thy  Joy,  thy  Paftime,  thy  Attire,  thy  Food  ? 

Who  for  thy  Table  feeds  the  wanton  Fawn, 

For  him  as  kindly  fpreads  the  flow'ry  Lawn. 

Is  it  for  thee,  the  Lark  afcends  and  fings  ? 

Joy  tunes  his  Voice,  Joy  elevates  his  Wings. 

Is  it  for  thee  the  Linnet  pours  his  Throat  ? 

Loves  of  his  own  and  Raptures  fwell  the  Note. 

Is  thine  alone  the  Seed  that  flrows  the  Plain  ? 

The  Birds  of  Heaven  fhall  vindicate  their  Grain.     Ep.  3.  1.  27. 

Having  thus  given  a  general  Idea  of  the  Goodnefs  and  Wifdom 
of  God,  and  the  Folly  and  Ingratitude  of  Man,  the  great  Author 
comes  next  (after  this  neceffiiry  Preparation)  to  the  Confirmation  of 
his  Thcfis,  Thr.t  partial  moral  Evil  is  univerfal  Good  :  But  intro- 
duceth  it  with  a  proper  Argument  to  abate  our  W,onder  at  the 
Phaenomenon  of  moral  Evil,  which  Argument  he  builds  on  a  Con- 
ceflion  of  his  Adverfarles.  "  If  we  afk  you,  fays  he,  [from  1.  136 
"  to  147.]  whether  Nature  doth  not  err  from  the  gracious  End  of 

"its 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON    MAN.  39 

«  its  Creator,  when  Plagues,  Earthquakes,  and  Tempers,  unpeople 
*'  whole  Regions  at  a  time  r  you  readily  anfwer.  No.  For  that 
"  God  a£l:s  by  general  and  not  by  particular  Laws;  and  that  the 
"  Courfeof  Matter  and  Motion  muft  be  necefl'arily  fubjeiSl:  to  fome 
"  Irregularities,  becaufe  nothing  created  is  perfedl."  Say  you  fo  ? 
I  then  afk,  why  you  (hould  expe6l  this  Perfedion  in  Man  ?  If  you 
own  that  t!ie  great  End  of  God  (notwitliftanding  all  this  Devia- 
tion) ht  general  Happ'mefs,  then  it  is  Nature,  and  not  God  that  de- 
viates ;  and  do  you  cxpeft  greater  Conftancy  in  Man  ? 

Then  Nature  deviates,  and  can  Man  do  lefs  ? 
/.  e.  If  Nature,  or  the  inanimate  Syftem  (on  which  God  hath 
impofed  his  Laws,  which  it  obeys  as  a  Machine  obeys  the  Hand 
of  the  Workman)  may  in  Courfe  of  Time  deviate  from  its  firft  Di- 
re6i:ion,  as  the  bed  Philofophy  fhcws  it  may  *;  where  is  the  Won- 
der that  Man,  who  was  created  a  Free  Agent,  and  hath  it  in  his 
Power  every  moment  to  traiifgrefs  the  eternal  Rule  of  Right,  fliould 
fometimes  go  out  of  Order  ? 

Having  thus  (hewn  how  Moral  Evil  came  into  the  World,^  name- 
ly, by  Man^s  Abufe  of  his  own  Free-ivill,  he  comes  to  the  point,  the 
Cotifirmation  of  his  'The/is,  by  fliewing  how  moral  Evil  promotes 
Good;  and  employs  the  fame  Conceffion  of  his  Adverlaries,  con- 
cerning natural  Evil,  to  illuftrate  it. 

I.  He  fhews  it  tends  to  the  Good  of  the  Whole,  or  XJnlverfe 
[from  1.  146  to  157.]  and  this  by  Analogy.  "  You  own,  fays  he, 
"  that  Storms  and  Tempefts,  Clouds,  Rain,  Heat,  and  Variety  of 
"  Seafons  are  neceflkry  (notwithftanding  the  accidental  Evils  they 
"  bring  with  thm)  to  theHealthandPlenty  of  this  Globe-,  why  then 
"  fhould  you  fuppofe  there  is  not  the  fame  Ufe,  with  regard  to  the 

*  While  Comets  move  in  very  eccentrick  Orbs,  in  all  Manner  of  Pofitions,  blind 
Fate  could  never  make  all  the  Planets  move  one  and  the  fame  Way  in  Orbs  concentnck, 
fome  inconfiderable  Irregularities  excepted,  which  may  have  rifen  from  the  mutual 
Actions  of  Comets  and  Planets  upon  one  another,  and  virhich  will  be  apt  to  increafe  till 
this  Syftem  wants  a  Reformation,     Sir  If.  Newt.  Optics,  Qneft.  ult. 

*'  Univerfe^ 


40  ACOMMENTARYON 

*'  Univcrfi^  in  a  Borgia  and  a  Catiline?'*  But  you  fay  you  can  fee 
the  one  and  not  the  other.  You  fay  right.  One  terminates  in  this 
Sxjlcm,  the  other  refers  to  tiic  JFhole,  But,  fays  the  Poet,  majio- 
ther  Place, 

— of  this  Frame,  the  Bearings  and  the  Ties, 

The  ftrong  Connexions,  nice  Dependencies, 

Gradations  juft,  has  tliy  pervading  Soul 

LookM  thro'  ?     Or  can  a  Fart  contain  the  Whole? 

1.  29,  et  feq^. 
Own  therefore,  fays  he,  here,  that, 

From  Pride,  from  Pride  our  very  Reafonlng  fp rings  ; 

Account  for  moral  as  for  natural  Things  : 

Why  charge  we  Heaven  in  thofe,  in  thefe  acquit  ? 

In  both  to  reafon  rights  is  to  Jubmit. 

2.  But  fecondly,  to  ftrengthen  the  foregoing  analogical  Argu- 
ment, and  to  make  the  Wifdom  and  Goodnefs  of  God  fllll  more 
apparent,  he  obferves  next  [from  1.  156  to  165]  that  moral  R'uil 
Is  not  only  produtflive  of  Good  to  the  Whole,  but  is  even  produc- 
tive of  Good  in  our  own  Syjlem.  It  might,  fays  he,  perhaps  appear 
better  to  us,  that  there  were  nothing  in  this  World  but  Peace  and 
Virtue, 

That  never  Air  nor  Ocean  felt  the  Wind, 

That  never  Paflion  difcompos'd  the  Mind. 

But  then  confider,  that  as  our  material  Syjlem  is  fupported  by 
the  Strife  of  its  Elementary  Particles,  fo  is  our  intellectual  Syjlem  by 
the  Conflidl  of  our  Paffions,  which  are  the  Elements  of  human 
A<flion. 

Love,  Hope,  and  Joy,  fair  Pleafure's  fmiling  Train, 
Hate,  Fear,  and  Grief,  the  Family  of  Pain, 
Thefe  mlx'd  with  Art,  and  to  due  Bounds  confin'd. 
Make  and  maintain  the  Balance  of  the  Mind. 

Ep,  2.  1.  107,  etjeq. 
For 


Mr.   POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  41 

For  (as  he  fays  again  in  his  fccond  Epiftlc,  where  he  illuflra'ces 
this  Obiervatlon  at  large) 

What  Crops  of  Wit  and  Honefly  appear 

From  Spleen,  frona  Obftlnacy,  Hate  or  Fear  !     1.  175. 

In  a  word,  as  without  the  benefit  of  tempeftuous  fVinds^  both 
Air  and  Ocean  would  ftagnate,  and  corrupt,  and  fpread  univerfal 
Contagion  throughout  all  the  Ranks  of  Animals  that  inhabit,  or 
are  fupported,  by  them  ;  fo,  without  the  Benefit  of  the  Pajfiotis,  that 
Harmony,  and  Virtue,  the  EfFe£ls  of  the  Abfence  of  thofe  Paffions, 
would  be  a  iifelefs  Calm,  a  ftolcal  Apathy, 

Contrafled  all,  retiring  to  the  Bread  : 

But  Health  of  Mind  is  Exercife,  not  Re/l.     Ep.  2.  1.  93. 

Therefore,  concludes  the  Poet,  inftead  of  regarding  the  Conjlitl  of 
Elements,  and  the  Pajfions  of  the  Mind,  as  Dforders  ;  you  ought 
to  confider  them  as  what  they  are.  Part  of  the  general  Order  of 
Providence :  and  that  they  are  fo,  appears  from  their  always  pre- 
fervlng  the  fame  unvaried  Courfe,  throughout  all  Ages,  from  the 
Creation,  to  the  prefent  Time  : 

The  general  Order,  fince  the  Whole  began, 

Is  kept  in  Nature,  and  is  kept  In  Man. 

We  fee  therefore  it  would  be  doing  great  Injuftlce  to  our  Author 
to  fufpeft  that  he  Intended,  by  this,  to  give  any  Encouragement 
to  Vice ;  or  to  infinuate  the  NcccJJity  of  it  to  a  happy  Life,  on  the 
equally  execrable  and  abfurd  Scheme  of  the  Author  of  the  Fable  of 
the  Bees.  His  Syftem,  as  all  his  Ethic  Epijlles  (hew,  is  this.  That 
the  Paffions,  for  the  Reafons  given  above,  are  neceffary  to  the  Sup- 
port of  Virtue :  That  Indeed  the  Paffions  In  Excefs,  produce  Vice, 
which  Is,  In  its  own  Nature,  the  greateft  of  all  Evils;  and  coma* 
into  the  World  from  the  Abufe  of  Man's  Free-will;  but  that  God, 
in  his  infinite  Wifdom,  and  Goodnefs,  devloufly  turns  the  natural 

Vol.  VL  G  Bias 


4j  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

Bias  of  its  Malignity  to  the  Advancement  of  human  Hnpplnefs,  and 
makes  it  productive  of  general  Good: 

Th' ETERNAL  ArT  EDUCES  GoODFKOmIlL.      Ep.  2.1. 165. 

This,  fet  againft  what  we  have  obferved  of  the  Poet's  Do£trine 
oi  ti  future  StatCy  will  furnifli  us  witli  an  InOance  of  his7?^fr/«^  (as 
he  well  cxpreflcs  it  in  liis  Preface)  between  Do5lrines  feemingly  oppo- 
Jite  :  If  bis  EJliy  has  any  Merit,  he  thinks  it  is  in  this.  And  doubt- 
lefs  it  is  uncommon  Merit  to  reje£t  the  Extravagances  of  every 
Syftem,  and  take  in  only  what  is  rational  and  real.  The  Charac- 
terijiics,  and  the  Fable  of  the  Bees,  are  two  feemingly  inconfiflent 
Syftems :  The  Extravagancy  of  the  firft  is  in  giving  a  Scheme  of 
Virtue  ivithout  Rtligion  ;  and  of  the  latter,  in  giving  a  Scheme  of 
Religion  without  Virtue.  Thefe  our  Poet  leaves  to  any  body  that 
will  take  them  up  ;  but  agrees  however  fo  far  with  the  frf,  that 
Virtue  would  be  worth  having,  though  itfclf  was  its  only  Reward  ; 
and  fu  far  with  the  biter,  that  God  makes  Evil,  againfl  its  Nature,. 
produ«5tive  of  Good. 

The  Poet  having  thus  juflified  Providence  in  its  PenniJJion  of  par- 
tial MORAL  Evil,  employs  the  remaining  part  of  this  Epiftle  in 
vindicating  it  from  the  Imputation  of  certain  fuppofed  natural 
Evils.  For  now  he  fliews,  that  though  the  Complaint  of  hisAd- 
verfijries  againft  Providence  be  on  Pretence  oi real  moral  Evils,  yet, 
at  bottom,  it  all  proceeds  from  their  Impatience  under  imaginary 
natural  ones,  the  Iffue  of  a  depraved  Appetite  for  vifionary  Advan- 
tages, which  if  Man  had,  they  would  be  either  ufelefs  or  pernicious 
to  him,  as  unfuitable  to  his  State,  or  repugnant  to  his  Condition, 
[from  1.  164  to  199]  "Though  God  (fays  he)  hath  fo  bountifully 
"  beftowed  on  Man,  Faculties  little  lefs  than  A'lgelic,  yet  he  un- 
«' gratefully  grafps  at  higher;  and  then,  extravagant  in  another 
^  Extreme,  with  a  Paflion  as  ridiculous  as  that  is  impious,  envies 
♦'  even  the  peculiar  Accommodations  oi  Brutes.  But  here  his  own 
«'  Principles  ihew  his  Folly."  He  fuppofes  them  all  made  for  his 
\^i'i  ;  Now  what  Ufe  could  he  have  of  them,  when  he  had  robbed 

them 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  43 

them  of  all  their  Qualities,  polities,  as  they  are  at  prefcnt  divided, 
diftributed  with  the  highefl  Wifdom  :  But  which,  if  beftowed  ac- 
cording to  the  froward  Humour  of  thefe  childifh  Complainers, 
would  be  found  to  be  every  where  either  wanting  or  fuperfluous. 
But  even  with  thefe  brutal  Qualities  Man  would  not  only  be  no 
Gainer,  but  a  confiderable  Lofer,  as  the  Poet  fhews,  in  explaining 
the  Confequcnccs  that  would  follow  from  his  having  his  Senfations 
in  that  exquifite  Degree  in  which  this  or  that  Animal  is  obferved 
to  poflefs  them. 

He  tells  us  next  [from  1.  198  to  225]  that  the  complying  with 
fuch  extravagant  Defires  would  not  only  be  itfelcfs  and  pernicious  to 
Man^  but  would  be  breaking  the  Order,  and  deforming  the  Beauty, 
of  God's  Creation.  In  which  this  Animal  Is  fubjedl  to  that^  znda// 
to  Man  ;  who  by  his  Reafon  enjoys  the  Benefit  of  all  their  Powers  : 

Far  as  Creation's  ample  Range  extends. 

The  Scale  of  ftn/iial,  mental  Powers  afcends  : 

Mark  how  it  mounts,  to  Man's  imperial  Race, 

From  the  green  Myriads  in  the  peopled  Grafs  1 

Without  this  juft  Gradation,  could  they  be 

Subje6led  thefe  to  thofe,  or  all  to  thee  ? 

The  Powers  of  all  fubdued  by  thee  alone. 

Is  not  thy  Reafon  all  thofe  Powers  in  one  ? 

And  farther  [from  1.  224  to  259]  that  this  breaking  the  Order  of 
Things,  which  as  a  Link  or  Chain  connedls  all  Beings  from  the 
higheft  to  the  loweft,  would  unavoidably  be  attended  with  the 
Deflrudion  of  tbe  Univerfe  : 

For  if  each  Syflem  in  Gradation  roll, 

Alike  eflential  to  th'  amazing  Whole ; 

The  leaft  Confufion  but  in  one,  not  all 

That  Syftem  only,  but  the  Whole  muft  fall. 

Let  Earth  unbalanc'd  from  her  Orbit  fly. 

Planets  and  Suns  rulh  lawlefs  thro'  the  Sky  : 

G  2  Let 


44  ACOMMENTARYON 

Let  ruling  Angels  from  their  Spheres  be  hurl'd. 
Being  on  Being  wrcck'd,  and  World  on  World, 
Heaven's  whole  Foundations  to  their  Centre  nod> 
And  Nature  tremble  to  the  Throne  ofGod. 

For  that  the  feveral  Parts  of  the  Univerfe  mufl:  at  leaft  compofe 
as  entire  and  harmonious  a  Whole,  as  the  Parts  of  an  human  Body 
do,  cannot  be  doubted  :  Yet  we  fee  what  Confufion  it  would  make 
in  our  Frame,  if  the  Members  were  fet  upon  invading  each,  other's 
Office. 

What  if  the  Foot,  ordainM  the  Dufl:  to  tread,. 

Or  Hand  to  toil,  afpir'd  to  be  the  Head?   &c.. 

Jufl:  as  abfurd,  for  any  Part  to  claim 

To  be  another  in  this  gen'ral  Frame  : 

Juft  as  abfurd,  to  mourn  the  Talk  and  Pains 

The  great  dire£ting  *  Mind  of  All  ordains. 

Who  will  not  acknowledge  that  fo  harmonious  a  Connexion  in 
the  Difpofition  of  Things,  as  is  here  dcfcribed,  is  trnnfcendently 
beautiful  ?  But  the  Fatalijls  fuppofe  fuch  a  one. — What  then  ?  Is 
the  firfl:  great  free  Agent  debarred  from  a  Contrivance  fo  exqulfite, 
becaufe  fome  Men,  to  fet  up  their  Idol,  Fate,  abfurdly  reprefent  it 
as  prefiding  over  fuch  a  Syftem  ? 

Having  thus  given  a  Reprefentatlon  of  God's  Creation,  as  one 
entire  Whole,  where  all  the  Parts  have  a  neceffary  Dependance  on 
and  Relation  to  each  other,  and  where  every  Particular  works  and 
concurs  to  the  Perfedion  of  the  JFhole  ;  as  fuch  a  Syftem  would  be 
thought  above  the  reach  of  vulgar  Ideas ;  to  reconcile  it  to  their 
Conceptions,  he  (hews  [from' 1.  258  to  a73]»  that  God  is  equally 
and  intimately  prefent  to  every  Sort  of  Subftance,  to  every  Particle 
of  Matter,  and  m  every  Inftant  of  Being  ;  which  eafes  the  labouring 

•  Veneramur  autem  et  colimus  ob  Domirtum.  Deus  enim  fine  Dominio,  Providentia, 
«t  caufis  Finalibus,  nihil  aliud  eft  qnam  Fatum  bINatura.  Newtoni  Princip.  SchoU 
geuer,  fub  fitiem.  '  ' 

Imagination, 


Mn.     POPE»S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  45 

Imngination,  and  makes  it  exped  no  lefs,  from  fuch  a  Prefence,  than 
fuch  a  DifpenfiUion. 

And  now,  the  Poet,  as  he  had  promifed,  having  vindicated  the 
Ways  of  God  to  Man,  concludes  [froml.  272  to  the  End]  that  from 
what  had  been  faid  it  appears,  that  the  very  Things  we  blame  con- 
tribute to  our  Happinefs,  either  as  Particulars,  or  as  Paris  of  the 
Univerfal  Syfiem ;  that  our  Ignorance,  in  accounting  for  the  Ways 
of  Providence,  was  allotted  to  us  out  of  Compaffion  ;  that  yet  we 
have  as  much  Knowledge  as  is  fufficient  to  fhew  us,  that  we  are,, 
and  always  (hall  be,  as  bleft  as  we  can  bear;  for  that  Nature  is. 
neither  a  Stratonic  Chain  of  blind  Caufes  and  EfFedls, 

(All  Nature  is  but  Art  unknown  to  thee)  ; 
nor  yet  the  fortuitous  Refult  of  Epicurean  Atoms, 

(All  Chance,  DireSiion  which  thou  can  ft  not  fee)  ; 

as  thefe  two  Species  of  Atheifm  fuppofed  it ;  but  the  wotiderful 
Art  and  Dire£lion  (unknown  indeed  to  Man)  of  an  all-powerful, 
all-wife,  all-good,  and  free  Being.  And  therefore  we  may  be 
aflured,  that  the  Arguments  brought  above,  to  prove  partial  moral 
Evil  produ£tive  of  univerfal  Good,  may  be  fafely  relied  on  ;  from 
whence  one  certain  Truth  refults,  in  fpite  of  all  the  Pride  and 
Cavils  of  vain  Reafon,  That  whatever  is,  is  Right,  with  re- 

GARD    TO    the    DISPOSITION    OF    GoD,      AND    TO    ITS    ULTIMATE 

Tendency.  And  this  Truth  onc^  owned,  all  Complaints  againft 
Providence  are  fecluded. 

But  that  the  Reader  may  fee,  in  one  View,  the  ExaSlncfs  of  the 
Method,  z% -wtW -^s  Force  of  the  Argument.,  I  fliall  here  draw  up  a 
fliort  Synopfs  of  this  Epiftle.  The  Poet  begins  in  telling  us  his. 
Subjeft  is  An  EJfay  on  Man. — His  End  of  Writing  is  to  vindicate 
Providence. — Tells  us  againft  whom  he  wrote,  the  Atheifis. — From 
whence  he  intends  to  fetch  his  Arguments, /row  the  vifible  Things  of 
God  feen  in  this  Syfem. — Lays  down  this  Proportion  as  the  Foun- 
dation of  his  Thclis,  that  of  all  pofible  Syflems,  infinite  Wifdom  has- 

formed^ 


^6  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

icr.iiai  the  bcji. — Draws  from  thence  two  Confequences ;  r.  That 
there  wujl  needs  he  fotnewhere  fuch  a  Creature  as  Man  ;  2.  That  the 
moral  Evil  which  He  is  the  Author  of,  is  produSlive  of  the  Good  of  the 
Jf'holi'.  This  Is  his  general  Thfis;  from  whence  he  draws  this 
Ccticltifon,  That  Man  Jl^ould  rcji  fubmijjive  and  content,  and  make  the 
•Hopes  cf  Futurity  his  Comfort — but  not  fufer  this  to  be  the  Occafion  of 
Pkide,  which  is  the  Caufe  of  all  his  impious  Complaints. 

He  proceeds  to  confirm  his  Thefs. — Previoufly  endeavours  to 
abate  our  Wonder  at  the  Phaenomenon  of  moral  Evil. — Shews  firft 
its  Ufe  to  the  Perfe5lion  of  the  Univerfe,  by  Analogy,  from  the  Ule 
oi  Phyfcal  Evil  in  this  particular  Syftem. — Secondly,  its  Ufe  in  this 
Syjlcm,  where  it  is  turned,  providentially,  from  its  natural  Biafs, 
to  promote  Virtue — Then  goes  on  to  vindicate  Providence  from 
the  Imputation  of  zt\\.^\\\  fujpojed  natural  Evils,  as  he  had  before 
juOified  it  for  the  Permiffion  of  real  moral  Evil,  in  (hewing  that 
though  the  Atheift's  Complaint  againft  Providence  be  on  Pretence 
of  real  moral  Evil,  yet  the  true  Caufe  is  his  Impatience  under  ima^ 
ginary  natural  Evil ;  the  Iflbe  of  a  depraved  Appetite  for  fantajlical 
Advantages,  which  he  Hiews,  if  obtained,  would  be  ujelefs,  or  hurt- 
ful to  Msiii — and  deforming  and  deflrudive  to  the  Univerfe;  as 
breaking  into  tliat  Order  by  which  it  is  fupported. — He  defcribes 
that  Order,  Harmony,  and  clofe  ConneSlion  cf  the  Parts.  And,  by 
fliewing  tlie  intimate  Prcfence  of  God  to  his  whole  Creation,  gives 
a  Reafon  for  an  Univerfe  fo  amazingly  beautiful,  and  perfedl.  From 
all  this  he  deduces  his  general  Conclufon,  that  Nature  being  neither  a 
blind  Chain  of  Caufes  and  EJfe^s,  nor  yet  the  fortuitous  Refult  of  wan- 
dering Atoms,  but  the  wonderful  Art  and  DireBion  of  an  all-wife,  all- 
good,  and  free  Being  x  Whatever  is,  is  Right,  with  regard  to  the 
JDifpofiiion  of  God  and  its  Ultimate  Tendency  ;  which  once  granted,  all 
Complaints  againfl:  Providence  are  at  an  End. 

This  is  a  plain  and  confident  Account  of  the  Argument  of  this 
famous  Eplftle,  which  (though  here  humbled,  and  ftripped  of  all 
its  Ornaments)  hath  fuch  a  Forc^  of  Reafoning  as  would  fupport 

Rhimes 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.        47 

Rhimes  as  bad  as  Donne  s,  and  fuch  a  Strain  of  Poetry  as  would  Im- 
mortalize even  the  wretched  Sophiflry  that  Mr.  de  Crousaz  has 
employed  againfi:  it. 

Whofe  Objeftions  it  is  now  high  time  we  fliould  coniider.-  For 
having  fhewn  what  Mr.  Pope''s  Syftem  really  is,  we  come  next  to 
Ihew  what  it  ih  not.;  namely,  what  that  Writer  hath  the  In- 
jxiftice,  or  tlie  Folly,  to  reprefent  it.  He  begins  his  Examina- 
tion, with  Inying,  that  "  Mr.  Pope  feems  to  him,  quite  through- 
"  out  his  Syftem,  to  embrace  the  pre-eJlabliJJjcd.  Harmony  of  the 
"  celebrated  Leibnitz,  which,  in  his  Opinion,  eftablifhes  a  Fa* 
*'  tality  deftruftive  of  all  Religion  and  Morality  *." — That  th« 
prc-pjlablijljed  Harmony  of  Leibnitz  terminates  in  Fate,  is  readily 
owned  ;  but  that  Mr.  Pope  hath  efpoufed  that  impious  Whimfy,. 
is  an  utter  Chimaera.  The  pre-eftablijbed  Harmony,  was  built 
upon,  and  Is  an  outrageous  Extenfion  of,  a  Conception  of 
Plato's;  who  combating  the  atheiftical  Ohjeclions  about  the  Origin 
of  Evil,  employs  this  Argument  in  Defence  of  Providence  ;  "That, 
"  amongft.  an  infinite  Number  of  poflible  Worlds  in  God's  Idea, 
**  this,  which  he  hath  created,  and  brought  into  Being,  and  admits 
*'  of  a  Mixture  of  Evil,,  is  the  kjiy  But  if  the  beji,.  then  Evil, 
confequently  is  partial,  comparatively  fmall,.  and  tends  to  the 
greater  Perfection  of  the  whole.  This  Principle  is  efpoufed  and 
fupported  by  Mr.  Pope  with  all  the  Power  of  Rcafon  and  Poetry. 
But  neither  ws^s  Plato  ^Fataliji,  nor  is  there  zny  Fat^li/m  in  tlie 
Argument.  As  to  the  Truth  of  the  Notion,  that  is  another  Quef- 
tion  ;  and  how  far  it  clears  up  the  very  difficult  Controverfy  about 
the  Origin  of  Evil,  that  is  ftill  another.  That  it  is  a  full  Solution 
of  all  Difficulties,,  I  cannot  think,  for  Reafons  too  long  to  be  given 
in  this  Place.  Perhaps  we  (hall  never  have  a  full  Solution  here ; 
and  it  may  be  no  great  Matter  though  we  have  not,  as  we  are  de- 
monflrably  certain  of  the  moral  Attributes  of  the  Deity.    However,, 

*  Examen  de  I'Effai  de  Mr.  Pope  fur  I'llouime. 

what: 


^8  A    COMMENTARY    OM 

what  may  juftify  Mr.  Pope  in  inforcing  and  illuftiatlng  thlsPlaionk 
Notion  is,  that  it  has  been  received  by  the  mofi:  celebrated  and  or- 
thodox Divines  both  of  the  ancient  and  modern  Church. 

This  Doflrine,  we  own,  then,  was  taken  up  by  Leibnitz-,  but 
it  was  to  ingraft  upon   it  a  moft  pernicious  Fatalljm.     Plato  faid, 
God  chofi  the  beft :   Leibnitz  faid,  he  could  not  but  chufe  the  beft. 
Plato  fiippofed  Freedom  in  God,  to  chufe  one  of  two  Things  equally 
good :  Leibnitz  held  the  Suppofition  to  be  abfurd ;   but  however, 
admitting  the  Cafe,  he  maintained  that  God  could  not  chufe  one  of 
two  Things  equally  good.     Thus  it  appears  the  firfl  went  on  the 
Syjiem  of  Freedom ;  and  that  the  latter,  notwithftanding  the  mofl 
artful  Difguifes  in  his  Theodicee,  was  a  thorough  Fatalifl.     For  we 
cannot  well  fuppofe  he  would  give  that  Freedom  to  Man  which  he 
liad  taken  away  from  God.     The  Truth   of  the  Matter  feems  to 
have  been  this :  He  faw,  on  the  one  hand,  the  monflirous  Abfur- 
dlty  of  fuppofing,  with  Spinofa,  that  blind  Fate  was  the  Author  of 
a  coherent  Univerfe  ;  but  yet,  on  the  other,  could  not  conceive,  with 
Plato,  that  God  could  forefee  and  condud,  according  to  an  arche- 
typal Idea,  a  World,  of  all  poffible  Worlds  the  befi,  inhabited  by 
free  Jgents.     This  Difficulty,  therefore,  which  made  the  Socinians 
take  Prefcience  from  God,  difpofed  Leibtiitz  to  take  Free-iicill  from 
Man:  And  thus  he  fafhioned  his  fantaftical  Hypothefis  :  He  fup- 
pofed  that,  when  God  made  the  Body,  he  impreffed  on  his  new- 
created  Machine  a  certain  Series  or  Suite  of  Motions  ;  and  that  when 
he  made  the  fellow  Soul,  the  fame  Series  of  Ideas,  whofe  Opera- 
tions, throughout  the  whole  Duration  of  the  Union,    fo  exadlly 
jumped,  that  whenever  an  Idea  was  excited,  a  correfpondent  Motion 
was  ever  ready  to  fatisfy  the  Volition.     Thus  for  Inflance,  when 
the  Mind  had  the  Will  to  raife  the  Arm  to  the  Head,  the  Body 
was  fo  pre-contrived  as  to  raife,  at  that  very  Moment,  the  Part 
required.     This  he  called  the  pre-established  Harmony.  And 
with  this  he  promifed  to  do  Wonders. 

Now 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  49 

Now  we  fee,  that,  from  the  Principle  of  PlatOy  as  well  as  from 
that  of  LeibnitZy  this  grand  Confequence  follows,  That  what- 
ever IS,  IS  RIGHT  }  becaufe  every  thing  in  this  World,  even  Evil 
itfelf,  tends  to  the  greater  Perfe6lion  of  the  whole.  This  Mr.  Pope 
employs  as  a  Principle^  throughout  a  Poem  (the  moft  fublime  that 
ever  was  written)  to  humble  the  Pride  of  Man,  who  would  im- 
pioufly  make  God  accountable  for  his  Creation.  What  then  does 
common  Senfe  teach  us  to  underftand  by  whatever  is,  is  right?  Did 
the  Poet  mean  right  with  regard  to  Man,  or  right  with  regard 
to  God  ?  Right  with  regard  to  itfelf,  or  right  with  regard  to  its 
ultimate  Tendency  ?  Surely  'with  regard  to  God :  For  he  tells  us, 
his  Defign  Is 

To  vindicate  the  Ways  of  God  to  Man.     1.  16. 
Surely  with  regard  to  its  ultimate  Tendency  :  For  he  tells  us  again, 

All  partial  111  is  univerfal  Good.     1.  283. 
Yet  Mr.  De  Croufaz  prepofteroufly  takes   it  the  other  way  ;   and 
fo  perverfely  interpreted,  it  is  no  Wonder  that  he,  and  his  wife 
Friends,  fliould  find  the  Poem  full  of  Contradidions*. 

But,  before  we  come  to  an  Examination  of  Particulars,  it  will 
be  neceflary  to  remind  the  Reader  once  again,  that  the  Subjeft  of 
this  Epiftle  is  a  Juftification  of  Providence,  againft  the  impious 
Obje£lions  of  atheiftic  Men.  It  is  to  vindicate  the  Ways  of  God  to 
Man. — Thus  the  Poet  addrefles  them  at  the  Begi?ining  : 

Prefumptuous  Man  !  the  Reafon  would'ft  thou  find 

Why  form'd  fo  weak,  fo  little,  and  fo  blind  ?     i.  35. 

Then  fay  not  Man's  imperfe<51:,  Heav''n  in  fault.     1.  6^. 

*  J'ai  111  I'eflai  de  Mr.  Pope  (repond  un  Ami  de  la  companie)  et  jamais  je  n'eus  plus 
befoin  dc  patience.  J'ai  fait  des  grands  efforts,  pour  y  trouver  quelque  fens  raifonable, 
et  je  les  ai  faits  inutilement.  TantoJ  j'y  fuis  tombc  fur  des  precifions  fophilliques, 
tantot  fur  des  decilions  egalemeiU  hardies  et  fans  preuves,  tantot  enfin  fur  des  longues 
periodes  d'lm  pompeiix  galimatias,  Sec.  Examcn  de  rEflai.— Thus  his  Friend  runt 
on  in  this  abufive  Way,  and  grows  nnore  particular  in  his  Scurrility,  while  Mr.  De 
Croufaz,  good  Man,  is  unable  to  make  him  hold  his  Peace, 

Vol.  VI.  H  As 


•50  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

As  he  proceeds,  he  ftlU  applies  his  Reafoniiig  to  the  fame  Mens 

Go nnd  ill  thy  Scale  of  Senfe 

Weigh  thy  Opinion  a^ainji  Providence  ; 
Call  Imperfetflion  what  thou  fancy 'ft  fuch  ; 
Say,   here  be  gives  too  little,  there  too  much  ; 
Dcftroy  all  Creatures  for  thy  Sport  or  Guft  : 
Yet  cry,  If  Man's  unhappy,  God's  unjujl.     1.  109,  ^  Jeq. 
And  concludes  with  this  Reproof  to  them  : 

Ceafe  then,  nor  Order  ImperfcBion  name.     1.  273. 

Having  premifed  thus  much,  we  now  proceed  to  Mr.  De 
Croufaz. 

Mr.  Pope  had  fald  : 

Tlie  Lamb  thy  Riot  dooms  to  bleed  to-day. 

Had  lie  thy  Reafon,  would  he  fkip  and  play  ? 

Pleas'd  to  the  laft,  he  crops  the  flow'ry  Food, 

And  licks  the  Hand  juft  rais'd  to  fhed  his  Blood. 

O  Blindnefs  to  the  Future  !  kindly  glv'n. 

That  each  may  fill  the  Circle  mark'd  by  Heav'n.     1.  77,  Ss'y^y. 

On  which  his  Commentator: — "  We  do  not,  indeed,  perceive 
*'  any  Thing  In  Beafts,  that  fhews  they  have  an  Idea  or  Apprehen- 
*'  fion  of  Death.  But,  furely,  with  regard  to  Man,  to  refleft  on 
"  Death,  and  to  contemplate  the  Certainty  of  it,  are  of  great 
•'  Ufe  to  a  prudent  Life  and  a  happy  Death.  Reafon  and  Religion 
"  agree  in  this,  and  a  Man  muft  want  both  one  and  the  other,  to 
**  cry  out, 

"  O  Blindnefs  to  the  Future  !  kindly  glv*n, 

"  Tliat  each  may  fill  the  Circle  mark'd  by  Heav'n. 

"  This  fuppofcs,  that  if  Men  had  a  Foreknowledge  of  their  Def- 
"  tiny,  they  would  do  all  they  could  to  avoid  it,  and  that  they 
"  would  fucceed :  Becaufe,  without  this  Ignorance,  Heaven,  it 
"  feems,  could  never  bring  all  its  Beings  to  Jill  that  Circle  marked 

*•  out 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  51 

«'  out  by  It.  Yet  this,  notwithftaiiding,  Is  a  Coiifcquence  that  cau 
*'  have  no  Place,  if  it  be  impoffible  for  Men  to  adl  with  Freedom. 
*'  But  the  Doftrine  of  Fate  neceflarlly  draws  us  into  Contradic- 
*'  tions  *."  Mr.  Croufuz  introduces  his  Commentary,  by  folemnly 
acquainting  his  Reader,  That  he  had,  from  his  very  Infancy,  a ftrong 
Biafs  towards  Logic  :  that  be  has  given  a  conjiderablc  Time  to  that 
Study,  and  does  not  repent  his  Pains  ;  that  he  has  prof  ted  by  Maxims 
ivhich  be  has  found  in  Books  not  loritten  with  a  Dtfgn  to  give  them  ; 
that  he  has  run  through  every  Book  that  has  fallen  into  his  Hands  under 
that  Title,  or  any  Thing  approaching  to  it ;  that  he  has  not  even  ncg^ 
leSied  the  mofi  out-offafioned  JVorks  of  this  Kind:  But,  as  the  great  ejl 
Treafurc  is  worthlefs,  unhfs  well  ufed,  he  is  refolved  to  employ 
fome  of  it  upon  Mr.  Pope -j--  And  here  you  have  the  Fruits  of  his 
Labours.  Here  he  has  fhewn,  to  fome  Purpofe,  his  Skill  in  ex- 
tracing  Dodlrines  from  Books  not  defigned  to  give  them.  And  for  this 
PafTage  I  will  be  anfwerable,  that  he  has  extracted  a  DoSirine  from 
it  which  our  Poet  did  not  defgn  to  give  ;  who,  when  he  had  an- 
fwered  the  atheifical  Objedlon  about  pofitive  Evil,  fuppofes  the  Ob- 
je6lor  to  reply  to  this  Effect : — It  may  be  true,  what  you  fay,  that 
partial  Evil  tends  to  univerfal  Good :  But  why,  then,  has  not  God 
let  me  clearly  into  this  Secret,  and  acquainted  me  with  the  Manner 
how  ?  The  Poet  replies,  '*  For  very  good  Reafons.  You  were 
"  fent  into  the  World  on  a  Talk  and  Duty  to  be  performed  by  you. 
**  And  as  the  knowing  thefe  Things  might  diftrad  you,  or  draw 
*'  you  from  your  Station  ;  it  was  In  Mercy  that  God  hath  hid 
**  thefe  Things  from  you  : 

Heav'n  from  all  Creatures  hides  the  Book  of  Fate, 
All  but  the  Page  prefcrib'd,  their  prefent  State, 
From  Brutes  what  Men,  from  Men  what  Spirits  know  ; 
Or  who  would fuff'er  Being  here  below?     1.  73,  ^  feq. 

*  Commentaire  fur  la  Tradudion  en  vers  de  Mr.  I'Abbc  du  Refnel  dc  I'Eflai   de  Mr. 
Pope  fur  rHomme,  p.  6j,  64, 
t  P.  J7.  28. 

Ha  «« To 


52  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  RY    O  N 

••  To  ilUirtratc  tliis  by  a  familiar  Inflancc  ;  how  kindly  hath  Nature 
••  af^cd  hy  tlic  Lamb,  in  liiding  its  Death  from  it ;  the  Know- 
••  ledge  of  which  would  have  imbitter'd  all  its  Life  ?"  This  is 
the  Force  of  the  Poet's  Ai  gnmcnt ;  and  nothing  can  be  better  con- 
nciftcd,  or  more  beautiful.  But  our  great  Logician,  inftead  of  at- 
tending to  the  Argument  of  a  very  clofe  Reafoner  (whofe  Thread 
of  Rc:\fonlng.  therefore,  one  flioiild  have  imagined  might  have  con- 
du£^ed  3  Marhcmatlciau  too,  as  he  is,  to  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Paf- 
fage)  rambles  nfter  a  Meaning  that  could  not  pofTibly  be  Mr.  Pepe's% 
bccaufc  it  both  difagrees  witii  the  Context,  and  dlre£ily  oppofes  what 
he  lavs  down  in  exprefs  Words  in  this  very  Eflay.  Mr.  De  Croufaz, 
we  fc?,  Lijagines  that  this  Inftance  of  the  Lamb  was  given  to  (hew 
how  hurtful  a  Gift  God  beflowcd  upon  us,  when  he  gave  us 
the  Knowledge  of  our  End.  Mr.  Pope  fays  exprefly,  that  it  was 
a  friendly  Gft : 

To  each  unthinking  Being  Hcav*n  a  Friend, 

Gives  not  the  ufelifs  Knoiukdge  of  its  Knd  t 

To  Man  imparts  it ;  but  with  fuch  a  View, 

As,  while  he  dreads  It^  makes  him  hope  it  too. 

Ep.   Hi.  I.   75,  &feq^ 

i.  e.  *'  Heaven,  which  is  not  only  friendly  to  Man,  but  Beaft,  gives 
*'  not  this  latter  the  Knowledge  of  its  End ;  becaufe  fuch  Knowledge 
**  (which  is  ncceflarlly  attended  with  Anxiety)  would  be  ufelefs  to. 
"  it.  On  the  other  hand,  He  gives  it  to  Man  j  becaufe  it  is  of  the 
*'  higheft  Advantage  to  him,  who,  being  to  exift  in  a  fuJure  State, 
"  may,  by  this  Means,  make  a  fitting  Preparation  for  his  good 
"  Reception  there ;  which  Preparation  will  temper,  and,  at  length, 
"  quite fubd'ue  the  Anxiety  ncceflarlly  attendant  (as  is  fald)  on  the 
"  Knowledge  of  our  End,  by  the  certain  Hope  of  a  happy  Im- 
*'  mortality." 

After  thefe  extraordinary  Fruits  of  our  Logician's  long  Appli^^ 
cation  to  the  Art  oj  Thinking,  he  goes  on,  for  four  Pages  together  *, 

*  Con-unetttaire,  p.  66  to  70. 

to 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  S3 

to  (hew  how  uieful  and  necefl'ary  it  Is  for  Man  to  cultivate  his  \Ji\- 
derftanding.  You  alk.  whom  he  contradifts  hi  this  ?  lie  abfurdly 
luppofes,  Mr,  Po/>e;  while  he  is  indeed  but  quarelling  with  his  own 
Imaginations.  Here  we  mufl:  recollect  what  we  oblerved  above  of 
the  Subje£l  of  the  Poem ;  which  is  a  Vindication  of  Providence 
againft  impious  Complainers.  As  thefe  will  not  acknowledge  it 
jul>  and  good,  becaufe  they  cannot  comprehend  it,  and  as  this  Ar- 
gument is  only  fupported  by  Pride,  the  Poet  thought  proper  to 
mortify  that  Pride ;  which  could  not  be  done  more  efFedually, 
than  by  (hewing  them,  that  even  a  Savage  Indian  reafoned  better  : 

Lo  !  the  poor  Indian,  whofe  untutor'd  Mind 

Sees  God  in  Clouds,  and  hears  him  in  the  Wind  ; 

His  Soul  proud  Science  never  taught  to  ftray 

Far  as  the  Solar  Walk,  or  Milky  Way  j      < 

Yet  fimple  Nature  to  his  Hope  has  giv'n. 

Behind  the  cloud-topt  Hill,  an  humbler  Heav'n  j 

To  be  contents  his  natural  Defire, 

He  a(ks  no  Angel's  Wing,  or  Seraph's  Fire,  &V. 

1.  9Sy  ^  M- 
What  are  we  to  conclude  from  hence  ?  That  Mr.  Pope  intended 
to  difcourage  all  Improvements  of  the  human  Underftanding  ?  or 
that  it  was  only  his  Defign  to  deter  Men  from  Impiety,  and  from 
prefuming  to  rejudge  the  Ju/iice  of  their  Creator  ?  Mr.  CroufaZy, 
contrary  to  common  Senfe,  and  the  whole  Tenor  of  the  Epiftle,. 
has  chofen  the  former  Part ;  though  Mr.  Pope  had  immediately 
added. 

Go  wifer  thou,  and  in  thy  Scale  of  Senfe 

Weigh  thy  Opinion  againft  Providence. 

Call  Imperfection  what  thou  fancy'fl:  fuch, 

Say,  Here  he  gives  too  little,  there  too  much  j 

Deftroy  all  Creatures  for  thy  Sport  or  Guft  t 

Yet  cry,  If  Man's  unhappy,  God's  unjufl.     1.  109,  &fef^ 


54  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

Hut  to  this,  the  Commentator: — •'  To  whom  does  Mr.  Pope  ad- 
*•  drels  hlmfelf  in  this  long  Period  ?  Is  it  to  thofe  prefumptuous 
"  Men,  who  arc  continually  confounding  themfclves,  and  abufing 
"  the  Fruitfulnefs  of  their  Imaginations,  to  teize  good  Chriftians 
«♦  with  Objcftions  againft  Providence  ?  Their  Raflinefs  and  Im- 
••  patience  well  deferve,  in  my  Opinion,  the  Cenfures  Mr.  Pofe 
♦♦  here  infli^s  upon  them  *." — Wonderful  !  Our  Logician  has, 
at  length,  difcovered  the  Subjeft  of  Mr.  Popes  Epiftle.  Why 
then  did  he  not  do  Juftice  to  Truth,  by  ftriking  out  all  the  reft  of 
liis  Remarks  ?  For  if  this  be  right,  all  the  reft  muft,  of  ccnfe- 
f]uence,  be  wrong. 

Mr.  Pope  fays,  (peaking  of  the  End  of  Providence, 
As  much  that  End  a  conftant  Courfe  requires 
Of  Showers  and   Sunfhine,  as  of  Man's  Defires  ; 
As  mucii  eternal  Springs  and  cloudlefs  Skies, 
As  Men  for  ever  temp' rate,  calm  and  wife.     1.  147,  t£  feq. 

On  which  the  Examiner,  *<  A  continual  Spring  and  a  Heaven 
*«  without  Clouds  would  be  fatal  to  the  Earth  and  its  Inhabitants  ; 
"  but  can  we  regard  it  as  a  Misfortune  that  Men  fhould  be  always 
"  fage,  calm  and  temperate  ?  1  am  quite  in  the  dark  as  to  this 
•'  Comparifon +."  Let  us  try  if  we  can  drag  him  into  light,  as 
unwilling  as  he  is  to  fee.  The  Argument  ftands  thus. — Prefump- 
tuous Man  complains  of  moral  Evil ;  Mr.  Pope  checks  and  informs 
him  thus  :  The  Evil,  fays  he,  you  complain  of,  tends  to  univerfal 
Good  ;  for  as  Clouds,  and  Rain,  and  Tempeft,  are  neceffary  to  pre- 
ferve  Health  and  Plenty  in  this  fublunary  World,  fo  the  Evils  that 
fpring  from  diforder'd  Paffions  are  neceffary. — To  what  ?  Not  to 
Man's  Happinefs  here,  but  to  the  Perfedlon  of  the  Univerfe  in  ge- 
neral.    So  that, 

If  Plagues  or  Earthquakes  break  not  Heaven's  Defign, 
Why  then  a  Borgia  or  a  Catiline  ? 

•  Coramentaire,  p.  79.  ^  Examen  de  I'Eflai,  Sec. 

On 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  ss 

On  whicli  the  Examiner  thus  defcants, — "  Thefe  Lines  have  no 
*'  Senfe  but  on  the  Syftem  oi Leibnitz,  which  confounds  Morals  with 
*'  Phyfica;  and  in  which, allthatwecallPleafures,Grief, Contentment, 
*'  Inquietude,  Wifdom,  Virtue,Truth,  Error,  Vices,  Crimes,  Abomi- 
*'  nations,  are  the  inevitable  Confequenceof  a  fatal  Chain  of  Things 
*'  as  ancient  as  the  World.  But  this  is  it  which  renders  the  Syftem 
"  fo  liorrible,  that  all  honefl  Men  mufl  fhudder  at  it.  It  is,  in- 
*'  deed,  fufficient  to  humble  human  Nature,  to  refle£t  that  this 
*'  was  invented  by  a  Man,  and  that  other  Men  have  adopted  it  *." 
This  is,  indeed,  very  tragical  j  but  we  have  fhewn  above,  that  it 
hath  its  Senfe  on  the  Platonic,  not  the  Leibnitzian  Syflem ;  and 
befides,  that  the  Context  confines  us  to  that  Senfe. 

What  hath  mifled  the  Examiner  is  his  fuppofing  the  Comparifon 
to  be  between  the  EfFeds  of  two  Things  in  this  Jublunary  IVorld ; 
when  not  only  the  Elegancy,  but  the  Jttjlnefs  of  it  confifts  in  its 
being  between  the  Effetls  of  a  Thing  in  the  Vniverfe  at  large,  and 
the  familiar  and  known  EffeSls  of  one  in  this  Jublunary  JVorld.  For 
the  Pojition  in  forced  in  thefe  Lines  is  this,  that  partial  Evil  tends  to 
the  Good  of  the  Whole  : 

Rejpebling  Man,  whatever  Wrong  we  call. 
May,  mufl:  be  right,  as  relative  to  all.     1.  51. 

How  does  the  Poet  inforce  it  ?  Why,  if  you  will  believe  the  Ex- 
aminer, by  illuflrating  the  EfFeds  of  partial  moral  Evil  in  a  par- 
ticular Syflem,  by  that  of  partial  natural  Evil  in  iht  fame  Syftem, 
and  fo  leaves  his  Pojition  in  the  lurch;  but  we  mud  never  believe 
the  great  Poet  reafons  like  the  Logician.  The  Way  to  prove  his 
Point  he  knew  was  to  illuftrate  the  EfFeil  of  partial  moral  Evil  in 
the  Univerfe,  by  partial  natural  Evil  in  ^  particular  Syjiem.  Whe- 
ther partial  moral  Evil  tend  to  the  Good  of  the  Univerfe,  being  a 
^teflion,  which  by  reafon  of  our  Ignorance  of  many  Parts  of  that 
Univerfe,  we  cannot  decide,  but  from  known  EfFedts  ;  the  Rules 
of  Argument  require  that  it  be  proved  by  Analogy,  i.e.  fetting  it 

*  Examen  de  I'Eflai,  &c. 

^7, 


56  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

by,  .wd  comparing  it  with  a  Tiling  certain  ;  and  it  is  a  Thing  cer- 
tain, that  partial  natural  Evil  tends  to  the  Good  of  our  particular 
S^itm.  This  is  his  Argument:  And  thus,  we  fee,  it  ftands  clear 
of  Mr.  De  Croujaz's  Objeaioii,  and  oi  Leibnitz's  Fatalifm. 

After  having  inforced  this  analogical  Pojition,  the  Poet  then  in- 
deed, in  order  to  ftrengthen  and  fupport  it,  employs  the  fame  In- 
ftance  of  natural  Evil,  to  fhew  that,  even  here  to  Man,  as  well 
as  to  the  JVhok,  moral  Evil  is  produftlve  of  Good,  by  the  gracious 
Difpofition  of  Providence,  who  turns  it  devioufly  from  its  natural 
Tendency. 

Mr.  Pope  then  adds, 

From  Pride,  from  Pride,  our  very  Reafoning  fprings  ; 

Account  for  moral,  as  for  nat'ral  Things  : 

Why  charge  we  Heaven  in  thofe,  in  thefe  acquit  ? 

In  both,  to  renfon  right,  is  to  fubmit.     1.  153,  ^  feq. 

Our  Commentator  afk? — "  Why,  then,  does  Mr.  Pope  pretend  to 
*'  reafon  upon  the  Matter,  and  rear  his  Head  fo  high,  and  decide 
•'  (o  dogmatically,  upon  the  moft  important  of  all  Subje<^s*?" 
This  is  indeed  pleafsnt.  Suppofe  Mr.  De  Croufa%  fhould  under- 
take to  (hew  the  Folly  of  pretending  to  penetrate  into  the  Myfte- 
ries  of  revealed  Religion,  as  here  Mr.  Pope  has  done  of  natural, 
ir.uft  he  not  employ  the  Succours  of  Reafon  ?  And  could  he  con- 
clude his  Reafonings  with  greater  Truth  and  Modefty,  than  in  the 
Words  of  Mr.  Pope? — To  reafon  right,  is  to  fubmit. — But  he  goes 
on,  "  If  you  will  believe  him  [Mr.  Pope"]  the  Sovereign  Perfeftions 
*'  of  the  eternal  Being  have  inevitably  determined  him  to  create  this 
"  Unlverfe,  bccaufe  the  Idea  of  it  was  the  mofl  perfeft  of  all  thofe 
'•  which  rcprcfented  many  poflible  Worlds.  Notwithftanding, 
*'  there 'is  nothing  perfe£l  in  this  Part,  which  is  affigned  for  our 
*'  Habitation  :  it  fwarms  with  Imperfeftions  ;  it  is  God  who  is  the 
"  Caufe  of  them,  and  it  was  not  in  his  Power  to  contrive  Matters 
*•  otherwife.      The  Poet  had  not  the  Caution  to  recur  to  Man's 

•  Commentaire,  p.  94, 

«•  Abufe 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  k,j 

"  Abufe  of  his  own  Free-will,  the  true  Source  of  all  our  Miferies, 
*'  and  which  are  agreeable  to  that  State  of  Diforder  in  which  Men 
**  live  by  their  own  Fault*."  1  will  venture  to  fay,  every  Part  of 
this  Refle£lion  is  falfe  and  calumnious.  The  firft  Part  of  it,  that 
xho  Eternal  Being,  according  to  Mr.  Pope,  was  inevitably  AttevirnnQ^, 
and  that  he  had  not  Power  to  contrive  Matters  otherwife,  I  have  al- 
ready fhewn  to  be  fo.  It  is  flill  a  more  unpardonable  Calumny  to 
fay  that  Mr.  Pope  has  thrown  the  Caiife  of  moral  Evil  upon  God,  and 
had  not  the  Caution  to  recur  to  Maris  Abvje  of  his  own  Free-will : 
For  Mr.  De  Croufa%  could  not  but  fee  that  the  Poet  had,  in  fo  many 
Words,  thrown  the  Caufe  entirely  upon  that  Abufe,  vvher<;,  fpeak' 
Ing  of  natural  and  moral  Evil,  he  fays. 

What  makes  all  Phyfical  and  Moral  111  ! 

There  deviates  Nature,  and  here  wanders  Will, 

God  sends  not  III.  Ep.  iv.  1.  109,  ^7?^. 

When  he  had  faid  this,  and  acquitted  the  fupreme  Caufe,  he  then 
informs  us  what  is  God's  Agency,  after  Natural  and  Moral  Evil 
had  been  thus  produced  by  the  Deviation  of  Nature,  and  Depravity 
of  Will ;  namely  that  he  hath  fo  contrived,  in  his  infinite  Wifdotn 
and  Goodnefs,  that  Good  fliall  arife  from  this  Evil. 
If  rightly  underftood. 

Or  partial  III  is  univerfal  Good, 

Or  Chance  admits,  or  Nature  lets  it  fall, 

Short  and  but  rare,  till  Man  improv'd  it  all.     1.  in,  ^ feq. 

And  fpeaklng  In  another  Place  of  God's  Providence,  he  fays, 
That  counterworks  each  Folly  and  Caprice, 
That  difappoints  th'  Effeds  of  ev'ry  Vice.     Ep.  ii.  1.  229. 

What  is  this  but  bringing  Good  out  of  Evil  ?     And  how'  dlf- 
tant  Is  that  from  being  the  Caufe  of  Evil  ? 

*  Commcntaire,  p.  94,  95. 

Vol.  VI.  I  After 


^s  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

After  thU,  a  Vklijobbtr  ihoulJ  never  think  of  writing  more  till 
he  haa  rcaihcd  what  he  had  already  wrote  fo  mucli  ainlfs. 
Tlic  next  PalVage  the  Examiner  attacks  Is  the  following  : 

Better  for  us,  perhaps,  it  might  appear, 

Were  there  all  Harmony,  all  Virtue  here  ; 

That  never  Air  or  Ocean  felt  the  Wind  ; 

That  never  Padion  difcompos'd  the  Mind  : 

But  all  fubfifts  by  elemental  Strife, 

AtiJ  PaJJions  are  the  Elements  of  Life.     1.  157,  ^  fq- 

Here  the  Examiner  upbraids  Mr.  Pope  for  degrading  himfelf  ft> 
f.ir  as  to  write  to  the  grofs  Prejudices  of  the  People.  *'  la  the  cor- 
"  porcal  Nature  (fays  he)  there  is  no  Piece  of  Matter  that  Is  per- 
"  fc(f\ly  fimplc  ;  all  are  compofed  of  fmall  Particles^  called  ele- 
'♦  mentary  ;  from  their  Mixture,  proceeds-  a  Fermentation,  fome- 
"  times  weak,  and  foraet'imcs  flrong,  which  ftill  farther  attenuates- 
"  thelc  Particles  :  and  thus  agitated  and  divided,  they  ferve  for 
"  the  Nourlfliment  and  Growth  of  organic  Bodies;  to  this  Growth 
"  it  Is  we  give  the  Name  of  Life.  But  what  have  the  Paflions  iti 
"  common  with  thefe  Particles?  Do  their  Mixture  and  Fermenta- 
*'  tion  ierve  for  the  Nourifhment  of  tliat  Subftauce  which  thinks, 
"and  do  they  conflitute  the  Life  of  that  Subftauce*?**  Thus. 
Mr.  Dt  Croufazy  who,  as,  a  little  before,  he  could  not  fee  the  Na- 
ture of  the  Comparlfon,  fo  here,  by  a  more  deplorable  Blindnefs,, 
could  not  fee  that  there  was  any  Comparlfon  at  all.  "  You,  fays 
"  Mr.  Pc/f,  perhaps  may  think  it  would  be  better,  that  neither 
♦'  Air  nor  Ocean  was  vexed  with  Tempefts,  nor  that  the  Mind 
"  was  ever  difcomppfed  by  Paffion  ;  but  confider,  that  as  in  the 
"  one  Cafe  our  material  Syftem  Is  fupported  by  the  Strife  of  Its 
«'  elementary  Particles,  fo  in  the  Intelleclual,  the  Paffions  of  the 
*'  Mind  are,  as  it  were,  the  Elements  of  human  Life,  i.  e.  Adlloris.'* 
All  here  Is  clear,  fulid,  and  well-reafoacd,  and  hath  been  confidered 

*   Exr.racn  de  rEfU'.:. 

'above. 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  ^9 

above.  What  mufl:  we  fay  then  to  our  Examiner's  wild  Talk  of 
ihe  Mixture  and  Fermentation  of  elementary  Particles  of  Mailer  for 
the  NouriJJjment  of  that  Subflance  that  thinks,  and  of  its  confliluting 
the  Life  of  that  Subfance  ?  I  call  it  the  Examiner's,  for,  you  fee, 
it  is  not  Mr.  Pope's;  and  Mr.  Croufaz  ought  Co  be  charged  with 
it,  becaufe  it  may  be  queftioncd  whether  it  was  a  fmple  Blunder, 
he  urging  it  fo  invidioufly  as  to  infinuate  that  Mr.  Pope  might 
probably  hold  the  Materiality  of  the  Soul.  However,  if  it  was  a 
Miflake,  it  was  a  pleafant  one,  and  arofe  from  the  Ambiguity 
of  the  Word  Life,  which  in  Englifj,  as  la  Vie  in  French^  figni- 
fies  both  Exi/le?2ce  and  human  ASlion,  and  is  always  to,  have  its 
Senfe  determined  by  the  Context, 

Mr.  Pope  fays,  fpeaking  of  the  Brute  Creation, 
Nature  to  thefe,  without  Profufion,  kind, 
The  proper  Organs,  proper  Powers  affign'd.     I.   171. 

"Mr.  Croufaz  obferves,  that  "  In  this  Verfe,  by  the  Term  Na- 
*'  tare,  we  muft  neceflarily  underftand  the  Author  of  Nature  ;  it 
*'  is  a  Figure  much  in  Ufe.  Spinoza  has  employ'd  all  his  Meta- 
*'  phyfics  to  confound  thefe  two  Significations  *."  Therefore,  I 
fuppofe,  Mr.  Pope  muft  not  employ  the  Word  at  all,  though  it  be 
to  vindicate  it  from  that  Abufe,  by  diflinguifliing  its  different  Signi- 
fications. But  this  we  are  to  confider  as  a  Touch  of  our  Logician's 
Art.  It  is  what  they  call  Argumentum  ad  invidiam. 
The  Poet, 

For  as  Creation's  ample  Range  extends, 
The  Scale  of  fenfual,  mental  Powers  afcends  i 
Mark  how  it  mounts  to  Man's  imperial  Race, 
From  the  green  Myriads  in  the  peopled  Grafs. 

Ep.   i.  h   199,  ^  fe^i. 

On  this  the  Commentator,  "That  Place  of  Honour,  which  the 
**  Poet  has  refufed  to  Man  in  another  Part  of  his  Epiflle,  he  gives 

*  Commentaire,  p.  99. 

I  2  «'  him 


6o  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

•»  him  here,  becnulc  it  lerves  to  enibellifli  and  perfe£l  the  Grada- 
•'  tion.  At  fverv  Step  Mr.  Pope  forgets  one  of  thofe  principal  and 
••  moll  efll'ntijl  Rules,  which  Mr.  Dts  Cartes  lays  down  in  his 
•*  MethiJ ;  that  is,  cxaiftly  to  review  what  one  aflerts,  fo  that  710 
•♦  P.irt  be  found-  to  be  gratis  diSlum,  nor  the  Whole  repugnant  to 
*•  itfelf  *."  This  we  are  to  underftand,  as  faid,  ^KXetiltKuig.  But  I 
fh.ill  beg  leave  to  obferve  that  our  Logician  here  gives  his  LeflbiiiS 
very  impertinently.  For,  that  Mr.  Pope,  in  calling  the  R^ice  of 
Man  imperia/f  hath  beflowed  no  Title  on  him  in  this  Place,  which 
he  had  denied  him  elfewhere.  He,  with  great  Piety  and  Prudence, 
fuppofes  what  the  Scripture  tells  us  to  be  true,  that  Man  nvas  created 
Lord  of  this  inferior  World;  he  fuppofes  it,  I  fay,  iu  thefe  Lines  of 
this  very  Epiftle : 

Without  this  jufl:  Gradation  could  they  be 

Suhjecied  thefe  to  thofe,  and  all  to  thee? 

Tlic  Powers  of  all  fubdued  by  thee  alone, 

Is  not  thy  Reafon  all  thofe  Powers  in  one  ?     1.  221,  ^ feq. 
He  exprefsly  offer ts  it  in  the  third  Epifile: 

Heaven's  Attribute  was  uuiverfal  Care, 

And  Man's  Prerogative  to  rule^  but  fpare.     1.  160. 

And  this,  in  the  very  Place  where  he  gives  the  Defcriptlon  of 
Man  in  Paradife. 

What  mifled  our  Critic  fo  far  as  to  imagine  Mr.  Pope  "had  here 
contradiaed  himfelf  was,  I  fuppofe,  fuch  Pafl'ages  as  thefe  :        • 
Afk  for  what  Epxd  the  heavenly  Bodies  fhine,  ^c. 

And  again  : 

Has  God,  thou  Fool  !  work'd  folely  for  thy  Good,  &c. 
But  m  Truth  tUs  is  fo  far  from  a  Contradidion  to  what  was  ll.id 
before  of  Man  s  Prerogative,  that  it  is  a  Confirmation  of  it,  and  of 
what  the  Scr.pture  tells  us  concerning  it.  And  becaufe  this  Matter 

*  Commentaire,  p.  joS. 

has 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  6i 

Las  been  miftaken,  to  the  Difcredit  of  the  Poet's  rehgious  Senti- 
ments, by  Readers,  whom  the  Condud-  of  certahi  licentious  Writ- 
ers,  treating  this  Subje6l  in  an  abufive  Way,  hath  rendered  jealous 
and  mlftruftful,  I  fhall  endeavour  to  explain  it.  Scripture  fays, 
that  Man  was  made  Lor^  of  All. — But  this  Lord,  become,  at  length, 
intoxicated  with  Pride,  the  common  EfFedl  of  Sovereignty,  eredled 
himfelf,  like  particular  Monarchs,  Into  z  Tyranf.  And  zs  Tyranny 
confifts  in  fuppofing  all  made  for  the  XJfe  of  one  \  he  took  thofe  Free- 
doms witl)  all,  that  are  confequent  on  fuch  a  Principle.  He  foou 
began  to  confider  the  whole  Animal  Creation  as  his  Slaves,  rathec 
than  his  SubjeSh;  as  being  created  for  no  Ufe  oi  their  owUf  but  for 
his  only ;  and  therefore  ufed  them  with  the  utmofl:  Barbarity  :  And 
not  fo  content ;  to  add  Lfult  to  his  Cruelty,  he  endeavoured  to 
philofophife  himfelf  into  an  Opinion,  that  Animals  were  mere 
Machines,  infenfible  of  Pain  or  Pleafure.  And  thus,  as  Mr.  Pope 
fays,  Mati  affected  to  be  the  TVit,  as  well  as  Tyrant  of  the  Whole  *, 
Our  Commentator  can  tell  us  what  deep  Philofopher  it  was  that  in- 
vented this  witty  Syftem,  and  by  the  AfTiftance  of  what  Method 
fo  wonderful  a  Difcovery  was  brought  to  Light.  It  became  then 
one  who  adhered  to  the  Scripture  Account  of  Man's  Dominion,  to 
reprove  this  Abufe  of  it,  and  to  fhew  that. 

Heaven's  Attribute  was  univerfal  Care, 

And  Man's  Prerogative  to  rule,  but  spare. 
The  poetical  Tranflator  -j-  has  turned  the  Words,  to  Man's  imperial 
Race,  by 


Jufqu'a  I'Homme,  ce  Chef,  ce  Roy  de  rUnt 


vers 


Even  to  Man,  this  Head,  this  King  of  the  Vniverfe, 
Which  is  fo  fad  a  Blunder,  that  it  contradicts  Mr.  Pope's  whole  Svf- 
tem.     Who,  although  he  allows  Man  to  be  King  of  this  inferior 


*  Grant  that  the  Powerful  flill  the  Weak  controul, 

Be  Man  the  Wit  and  Tyrant  of  the  whole.  Ep.  iii.  54, 

+  M.L'Abbe  duRefneU 


World, 


6,  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

W'orKl,  ij  far  tVom  thinking  him  Kng  of  the  Unlverfe.  If  the 
Sylkin  itfclf  could  not  teach  him  tliis,  yet  methiuks  the  following 
Liiies  of  this  very  Epidle  might : 

So  Man,  wlio  liere  feems  Principal  alone, 

Perhaps  vl&s  Second  to  fome  Sphere  unknown.  1.  ^y. 
If  the  Tranflator  imagined  Mr.  Pofie  was  here  fpeaking  ironically, 
%vherc  he  talks  of  Mans  imperial  Race,  and  fo  would  heighten  the 
Ridicule  by  ce  Roy  de  I'Univcrs,  the  Miftnke  is  flill  worfe ;  the  Force 
of  the  Argument  depending  upon  its  being  {\\v\  ferioujly.  For  the 
Poet  is  fpeaking  of  a  Scale,  from  the  bighejl  to  the  lowefl,  in  the 
Mundane  Syftem. 

But  now  we  come  to  the  famous  FafTage  which  Is  to  fix  the 
Charge  : 

All  are  but  Parts  of  one  flupendous  Whole, 

VVhofe  Body  Nature  is,  and  God  the  Soul. 

Thar,  chang'd  through  all,  and  yet  in  all  the  fame. 

Great  in  the  Earth  es  in  th'  Etherlal  Frame, 

Warms  in  the  Sun,  refreflies  in  the  Breeze, 

Glows  in  the  Stars,  and  bloflbms  in  the  Trees, 

Lives  thro'  all  Life,  extends  thro'  all  Extent, 

Spreads  undivided,  operates  unfpent, 

Breathes  in  our  Soul,  Informs  our  mortal  Part, 

As  full,  as  perfed,  in  a  Hair  as  Heart; 

As  full,  as  perfeft.  In  vile  Man  that  mourns, 

As  the  rapt  Seraph  that  adores  and  burns  : 

To  him  no  high,  no  low,  no  great,  no  fmall ; 

He  fills,  he  bounds,  connedls,  and  equals  all. 

Ep.  I.  I.  259,  tifeq. 
On  wiiich  our  Examiner,  blind  to  the  Liglit  of  Reafon,  as  weW  as 
deaf  to  the  Charmi  of  Harmony—^  Spinozifi  (fays  he)  would  ex- 
prefs  bnnfcf  in  tlm  Manner*.     I  believe  he  would,  and  fo  would 

*  Exainen  de  I'Effai, 

St. 


I 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  6j 

St.  Paul  too,  writing  on  the  fame  Subje6t,  namely,  the  Omni- 
presence of  God  in  his  Providence,  and  in  his  Subftancc.  In  him 
we  live  and  move  and  have  our  Being  *  ;  /'.  e.  we  are  Parts  of  him, 
his  Offspring,  as  the  Greek  Poet,  a  Pantheiji,  quoted  by  the  Apoftle, 
obferves  :  and  the  Reafon  is,  becaufe  a  rehgious  T'hciji,  and  an  im« 
pious  Pantheiji,  both  profefs  to  believe  the  Omniprefence  of  God. 
But  would  Spin»Z(7,  as  Mr.  Pope  does,  call  God  the  great  direSiing 
Mind  of  all,  who  hath  Intentionally  created  a  perfedl  Univerfe  \V 
Or  would  Mr.  Pope,  like  Spinoza,  fay  there  is  but  one  univerfat 
Subflance  in  the  Univerfe,  and  that  blind  too  ?  We  k.no\w  Spinoza 
would  not  fay  the  firfl: ;  and  we  ought  not  to  think  Mr.  Pope  would 
fay  the  latter,  becaufe  he  fays  the  dire£l  contrary  throughout  the 
Poem.      Now  it  is  this  latter  only  that  is  Spinozifm. 

But  this  fublime  Dcfcription  of  the  Godhead   contains  not  only 
the  Divinity  of  St.  Paul;  but,  if  that  will  not  fatlsfy,  the  P/jilo/o- 
phy  likewife  of  Sir  Ifaac  Ncwlon. 
The  Poet  fays, 

All  are  but  Paris  of  one  ftupendous  Whole,. 

Whofe  Body  Nature  is,  and  God  the  SouL 
ThtPhilofopher,  "  Deus  omnipr^fens  eft,  non  per  Virtulem  fbfam, 
"  fed  etiam  per  Subst  antiam  :  nam  Virtus  fine  Subjlanlia  fubfillrere 
"  non  poteft  i." 
Mr.  Pope, 

That,  chang'd  thro*  all,  ?in^  yet  in  all  the  fame. 

Great  in  the  Earth  as  in  th'  Etherial  Frame, 

JVartns  in  the  Sun,  refrejhes  in  the  Breeze, 

Glows  m  the  Stars,  and  blojfoms  in  the  Trees, 

Lives  thro'  all  Life,  extends  thro  all  Extent, 

Spreads  undivided,  operates  unfpent. 

*  For  in  him  wc  liw  and  movCy  and  have  our  Being ;   as  certain,  alj'o  of  your  oiv.'i.-  Poets  havr 
/aid,  For  we  are  alfo  his  Offspring,  Afts  xvii.  28. 
t,  For  that  is  the  Meaning  of 

All  Nature  is  but  Art,  unknown  to  thee  ; 

All  Chance,  Diredion  which  thou  canft  not  feCi. 
t  Newtoui  Principia  Schol.  gener.  fub.  fiaem. 


(,^  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  1'  A  R  Y    O  N 

Sir  (jMic  Keivion—''  In  ipfo  coiitineiitur  et  moventur  univerHi, 
«♦  led  abfque  viuiua  fojfv.ne.  Deus  nihil  patilur  ex  corporum  moti- 
"  bus ;  ilia  nuHam  ftntiunt  rejljlentlam  ex  Omni-prafentia  Dei. — 
"  Corpore  omn't  ct  figvira  corporea  deftituitur*. — Omnia  regit  et 
«'  omnia  cognofcit. — Cum  iiuaquaeque  fpatil  paiticula  fit  Jemper^  et 
«♦  unumquodque  Durationis  itidivifibile  momentum,  «%«?,  certe 
'•  rcrum  omnium  Fabricator  ac  Dominus  non  erit  nunquam,  nuf- 
*'  qu.vn  +." 

Mr.  Pope, 

Breatlies  in  our  Soul,  informs  our  mortal  Part, 

As  full,  as  perfect,  in  a  Hair  as  Heart; 

As  full,  as  perfect,  in  vile  Man  that  mourns. 

As  the  rapt  Seraph  that  adores  and  burns  : 

To  him  no  high,  no  low,  no  great,  no  fmall ; 

He  fills,  he  bounds,  coniie<5ls,  and  equals  all. 
Sir  IJaac  Kevulon — "  Annon  ex  Phaenomenis  conftat  efle  Entem 
*'  Incorporeum,  Viventem,  Intelligentem,  Omnipraefentem,  qui  in 
**  fpatio  infinito,  tanqmm  fenforio  fuo.  Res  ipfas  intimc  cernat, 
*•  pcnitufque  perfpiciat,  totafque  intra  fe  prafem  prafentes  complec- 
♦•  tatur  X" 

But  now  admitting,  for  Argument's  fake,  that  there  was  an 
Ambiguity  in  thefe  Exprefiions,  fo  great,  as  that  a  Spinoziji  might 
employ  them  to  exprefs  his  own  particular  Principles ;  and  fuch  a 
thing  might  well  be,  without  any  Reflediou  on  the  Poet's  Reli- 
gion, or  Exa£tnefs  as  a  Writer,  becaufe  it  is  none  on  the  Apojile's, 
who  aiflually  did  that  which  Mr.  Pope  is  not  only  falfely,  but,  as 
\vc  fee  from  this  Inflance,  fooliflily  accufed  of  doing,  and  becaufe 
the  Spinozijis,  in  order  to  hide  the  Impiety  of  their  Principle,  are 
ufcd  to  exprefs  the  Omnipnfence  of  God  In  Terms  that  any  religious 
Thelft  might  employ  :  In  this  Cafe,  I  fay,  how  are  we  to  judge  of 
the  Poet's  Meaning  ?     Surely  by  the  whole  Tenor  of  his  Argument. 

•  N'cwtoni  Principia  Schol.  gener.  fub  fincm.  -f  Id.  ib. 

X  Opticx  Quaft.  10. 

Now 


Mr.    P0PE;S    essay    on     man.  65 

Now  take  the  Words  In  the  Seiife  of  the  SpinozJ/ls,  and  he  is  made, 
in  the  Conclufion  of  his  Epiftle,  to  overthrow  all  he  has  been  ad- 
vancing throughout  the  Body  of  it :  For  Spinozifm  is  the  Deftrudion 
of  an  Univerfe,  where  every  thing  tends,  by  a  forefeen  Contrivance 
In  all  its  Parts,  to  the  Perfc6lion  of  the  Whole.  But  allow  him  to 
employ  the  Pafl'age  in  the  Senfe  of  St.  Paul,  that  ive  and  all  Crea- 
tures I've,  and  wove,  and  have  our  Being  in  God,  and  then  it  will 
be  {e.QX\  to  be  the  moft  logical  Support  of  all  that  had  preceded.  For 
the  Poet  having,  as  we  fay,  laboured  through  his  Epiflle,  to  prove 
that  every  Thing  in  the  Univerfe  tends,  by  a  forefeen  Contrivance, 
and  a  prefent  Diredion  of  all  its  Parts,  to  the  Perfe>fli6n  of  the 
JVhole  ;  it  might  be  cbje6led  that  fuch  a  Difpofition  of  Things  im- 
plying in  God  a  painful,  operofe,  and  Inconceivable  Extent  of  Pro- 
vidence, it  could  not  be  fuppofed  that  fuch  Care  extended  to  all, 
but  was  confined  to  the  more  noble  Parts  of  the  Creation.  This 
grofs  Conception  of  the  Fitjl  Caufe,  the  Poet  expofes,  by  (hewing 
that  God  is  equally  and  intimately  prefent  to  every  Particle  of  Mat- 
ter, to  every  Sort  of  Subftance,  and  in  every  Inftant  of  Being. 

And  how  truly,  may  be  feen  by  the  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  the 
human  Soul,  wrote  expreflly  againft  Spinozifm,  where  the  excellent 
Author  has  fhewn  the  Neceffity  of  the  immediate-  hifuence  of  God;  \\\ 
every  Moment  of  Time,  to  keep  Matter  from  falling  back  into  its 
primitive  Nothing. 

The  Examiner  goes  on  :  "  Mr.  Pope  hath  Reafon  to  call  this 
<'  Whole,  Tijlupendous  Whole ;  nothing  being  more  paradoxical  and 
**  incredible,  if  we  take  his  Defcriptloii  literally  *."  I  will  add, 
nor  nothing  more  fo  than  St.  Paul's,  in  him  ive  live,  and  move,  and 
have  our  Being,  if  taken  literally.  I  have  met  with  one  who  took 
it  fo,  and  from  thence  concluded,  with  great  Reach  of  Wit,  that 
Space  was  God. 

But  Mr.  Pope  having  faidofCod,  that  he, 

Breathes  in  our  Soul,  informs  our  mortal  Part, 
As  full,  as  perfedl,  in  a  Hair  as  Heart  •." 

*   Examcn  de  TEflai. 

Vol.  VI.  K  ,l„ 


to  A     C  O  M  M  E  ^  T  AR  Y    ON 

the  O.inmciitator  remarks,  that  "  one  (hould  make  a  criminal  Abufe 
«•  of  thcfc  pompous  Exprcflions,  if  once  launched  out,  with  Spi- 
"  NO/.A,  to  confound  the  Subftance  of  God  with  our  own  ;  and  to 
«'  imagine  that  the  Subilance  of  what  we  call  Creature,  is  the  fame 
•'  with  that  Being's,  to  which  we  give  the  Name  of  Creator  *." 
Spinoza  is  ftill  the  Burthen  of  the  Song.  To  cut  this  Matter  fJiorf, 
we  fhall  therefore  give  Mr.  Pope's  own  plain  Words  and  Senti- 
ments, in  a  Line  of  this  very  Eflay,  that  overturn  alJ  Spinozifm 
from  its  very  Foundations:  Where,  fpeaking  of  what  Cc?«wo«  Senfe 
taught  Mankind,  hct'ore f alfe  Scfi/e  had  depraved  the  Underflanding, 
he  lays. 

The  Worker  from  the  Work  distinct  was  known. 
And  fimple  Reafon  never  fought  but  one.     Ep.  iii.  1.  230. 

Mut  the  Cc>nr,ie>itator  is,  at  every  Turn,  crying  out,  j^  Follower 
rf  Spinoza  wou/d  exprefs  himfelj  jujl  Jo.  I  believe  he  might ;  and 
furc  Mr.  Cronjaz  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  Reafon.  It  being 
\o  wc-11  known  that  that  unhappy  Man,  the  better  to  difguife  his 
Atheifm,  covered  it  with  fuch  Expreffions  as  kept  it  long  concealed 
even  from  thofe  Friends  and  Acquaintance  with  whom  he  moft 
intimately  correfponded.  Hence  it  muft  neceffarily  happen,  that 
every  the  beft  intentioned,  moft  religious  Writer  will  employ  many 
Phrafcs,  that  a  Sp'mozijl  would  ufe,  in  the  Explanation  of  his  Im- 
piety. 

To  perfifl:,  therefore,  from  henceforth,  in  this  Accufation,  will 
deferve  a  Name,  which  it  is  not  my  Bufinefs  to  beliow. 
Mr.  Pope  concludes  thus  : 

Ceafc  then,  nor  Order  Imperfection  name : 

Our  proper  Blifs  depends  on  what  we  blame. 

Know  thy  own  Point :  this  kind,  this  due  Degree 

OfBlindncli,  Weaknefs,  Heaven  beftows  on  thee. 

*  Commentaire, 

Submit. 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  ^f 

Submit. — In  this,  or  any  other  Sphere, 

Secure  to  be  as  blefl-  as  thou  canft  bear: 

Safe  m  the  Hand  of  one  difpofing  Power, 

Or  in  the  natal,  or  the  mortal  Hour.         1.  273,  ^ feq, 

*'  The  Heart  gives  itfelf  up  (fays  Mr.  De  Croufaz)  to  the  Mag- 
**  nificence  of  thefe  Words. — But  I  afk  Mr.  Pope,  with  regard  to 
*'  fuch  confolatory  Ideas,  whether  he  was  not  beholden.  In  fome 
*'  Meafure,  to  Religion  for  them*?"  This  is  in  the  true  Spirit 
of  modern  Controverfy. — Our  Logician  had  taken  it  into  his  Head, 
that  the  Poet  had  no  Religion  ;  though  he  does  not  pr-etend  his 
Proofs  rife  higher  than  to  a  legitimate  Sufpicion  ;  and  finding  here 
a  Pallage  that  fpoke  plainly  to  tlie  contrary,  inftead  of  retracing 
that  rafh  uncharitable  Opinion,  he  would  turn  this  very  Evidence 
of  his  own  Miftake  into  a  new  Proof  for  the  Support  of  it;  and  fo 
infinuate,  you  fee,  that  Mr.  Pope  had  here  contradided  himfelf. 
He  then  preaches,  for  two  Pages  together,  on  the  Paflage,  and 
ends  in  thefe  Words  :  "  From  all  this  I  conclude,  that  the  Verfcs 
*'  in  Quertion  are  altogether  edifying  in  the  Mouth  of  an  honell 
*'  Man,  but  that  they  give  Scandal  and  appear  profane  in  the 
**  Mouth  of  an  ill  one  i-"  How  exadlly  can  Rome  and  Geneva 
jump  on  Occafion  !  So  the  Conclave  adjudged,  that  thofe  Propo- 
sitions, which  in  the  Mouth  of  St.  jiujiin  were  altogether  edifying, 
became  fcandalous  and  profane  in  the  Mouth  Gijanjhiius. 

But  the  Examiner  purfues  the  Poet  to  the  very  End,  and  cavils 
even  at  thofe  Lines,  which  might  have  fet  him  right  in  his  Miftakes 
about  the  Senfe  of  all  the  reft. 

All  Nature  is  but  Art,  unknown  to  thee  ; 

All  Chance,  Diredion  which  thou  canft  not  fee; 

All  Difcord,  Harmony  not  underftood; 

All  partial  Evil,  imiverfal  Good  ; 

And  fpite  of  Pride,  in  erring  Reafon's  Spite, 

One  Truth  is  clear,  Whatever  is,  is  right. 

*  Commentaire,  p.  124,  125.  f  lb.  p.  127. 

K  2  «*  Sec 


63  A    C  O  M  M  F.  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

••  Sec  (favs  our  Euiminer)  Mr.  Pof)!*:  general  Conduficn,  all  tb.!t 
•'  »V,  Is  ri^bt.  So  that  at  the  Sight  of  Charles  the  Firft  lofing  his 
"  Head  on  the  Scaffold,  Mr.  Pope  muft  have  fald,  this  is  right;  at 
'•  the  Sight  too  of  his  Judges  condemning  him,  he  muft  hav€  fald, 
"  this  is  right ;  at  the  Siglit  of  fome  of  thefe  Judges,  taken  and  con- 
♦♦  demncd  for  tlic  Adlon  which  he  had  owned  to  be  right,  he 
•*  muft  have  cried  out,  fhis  is  doubly  right  *." 

How  unaccountable  is  this  Perverfenefs !     Mr.  Pope,  m  this  very 
Epfjllc,  has  himfelf //j«j  explained  IVbaiever  is,  is  right, 
RcfpetSllng  Man,  whatever  wrong  \\&  call, 
May,  muft:  be  right,  as  relative  to  all, 
— So  Man,  w^ho  here  feems  Principal  alone. 
Perhaps  a£ls  Second  to  fome  Sphere  unknown, 
Touches  fome  Wheel,  or  verges  to  fome  Goal  ; 
'Tls  but  a  Part  we  fee,  and  not  a  Whole.     1.  51,  ^  fq' 

But  it  is  amazing  that  the  Abfurditles  arlfmg  from  the  Senfe  la 
which  the  Examiner  takes  Mr.  Pope's  grand  Principle,  IFhatever  is, 
is  right,  could  not  fliew  him  his  Mlftakc  :  For  could  any  one  in  his 
Scnfes  employ  a  Propofition  in  a  Meaning  from  whence  fijch  evi- 
dent Abfurditles  immediately  arife  ?  1  had  obferved,  that  this  Ccn- 
chijion  of  Mr.  Pope's,  that  whatever  is,  is  right,  is  a  Confequence  of 
his  Principle,  that  partial  Evil  tends  to  miiverfal  Good.  This  (hews 
us  the  only  Senfe  in  which  the  Propofition  can  be  underflood, 
namely,  that  WHATEVER  IS,  IS  RIGHT,  WITH  REGARD 
TO  THE  DISPOSITION  OF  GOD,  AND  TO  ITS  ULTI- 
MATE TENDENCY.  Now  is  this  any  Encouragement  to  Vice  ? 
Or  does  it  take  off  from  the  Crime  of  him  who  commits  it,  that 
God  providentially  produces  Good  out  of  Evil  ?  Had  Mr.  Pope 
nbruplly  fald  in  his  Conclufion,  the  Refult  of  all  is,  that  ijohatever 
is,  IS  right,  Mr.  De  Crou/az  had  even  then  been  inexcufable  for 
putting  fo  abfurd  a  Senfe  upon  the  Words,  when  he  might  have 

*  Fxamcn  de  I'ElTai. 

feen 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  69 

feen  that  it  was  a  Couchifwn  from  the  general  Principle  above-mcn>- 
tioned  j  and  therefore  muft  neceflarlly  have  another  Meaning  :  But 
what  mufl:  we  think  of  him  ?  when  the  Poet,  to  prevent  Miftakes, 
had  delivered  in  this  very  place,  the  Principle  itfelf,  to_§-ether  with- 
this  Conclujion  as  the  Confequence  of  it : 

All  Dlfcord,  Harmony  not  underflood  ; 

Ail  partial  Evil,  iiniverfal  Good  ; 

And  fpight  of  Pride,  in  erring  Reafon's  Spighr, 

One  Truth  is  clear,  IVhatever  isy  is  right. 

1  cannot  fee  how  he  could  have  told  his  Reader  plainer,  -that  thi'S 
Condujion  was  the  Confequence  of  that  Principle,  unlcfs  he  hai 
wrote  THEREFORE,  in  great  Church  Letters. 

Thus  have  I  gone  through  what  I  found  material  in  Mr.  X)^ 
Croufazs  Exameti  and  Commentary  on  xhejirji  Epiftle  :  I  will  only 
ohlerve,  that  he  has,  in  feveral  Places,  charged  Mr.  Pope  with 
pretended  Abfurdlties  and  Impieties,  for  which  \ns  free  Tranflator  * 
is  only  anfwerable.  But  as  he  profeffes  not  to  underftand  Engli/Ji,. 
thofe  Things  might  have  been  paffed  over,  had  he  not  had,  at  the 
fame  time,  a  very  exa£l  and  excellent  Tranflation  in  prole  \,  by 
which  he  might  have  difcovered  the  Miltakes  of  the  other.  Not- 
withftanding  that,  he  has  chofen  to  follow  a  Verfion  aboundbg  in 
Abfurdities ;  becaufe  it  gave  him  frequent  Opportunity  to  calum- 
niate. On  this  account  therefore,  it  may  not  be  amifs  to  give  an- 
Inftance  or  two  of  thefe  confederate  Mlfreprefentations,  as  a  Speci- 
men of  this  Part  of  the  Performance,  likewife. 

The  Tranflator  fays, 

11  ne  defire  point  cette  celefte  Flame, 

Qui  des  purs  Seraphins  devore,  et  nourrit  I'Ame  ^. 

That  is,  the  Savage  does  not  dejire  that  heavenly  Flame,  "johich,  at 
the  fame  time  that  it  devours  the  Souls  of  pure  Seraphims,  nourifJ;>es 
them.     ^Ir.  De  Croufaz  remarks:   '■'■  Wlx.Pope,   by  exalting  the  Fire 

*  IMr.Refnd.  f  B^  INIr.  De  Silhouctto.  [%  Conimcntaiie,  p.  77. 

"  o£ 


yo  A     C  0  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

«*  of  liii  Poetry  by  an  Antithefis,  throws,  occafionally,  his  Ridicule 
««  oil  tliofc  heavenly  Spirits.  The  Indian,  fays  the  Poet,  contents 
«'  himfelf  without  any  thing  of  that  Flame,  whlcli  devours  at  the 
*'  fame  time  tiiat  it  nouriflics."  But  Mr.  Pope  is  altogether  free  from 
this  Imputation  ;  nothing  can  be  more  grave  or  fobcr  than  his  Engl'ijh 
on  this  Occafion  : 

To  be,  contents  his  natural  Defire ; 

He  a(ks  no  Angel's  Wing  or  Seraph's  Fire.     1.  105. 

But  neither,  I  dare  fay,  did  the  Tranflator  mean  any  Thing  of 
Ridicule  in  his  devore  &  nourrit  Pame.  It  is  the  fober  folid  Jargon 
of  tiic  Schools ;  and  Mr.  VAbbe  ik)  doubt  had  frequently  heard  it 
from  the  Benches  of  the  Sorbontie.  Indeed  had  a  Writer  like  Mr. 
Pope  ufed  fuch  an  Expreflion,  one  might  have  fufpe£l:ed  that  he 
was  not  fo  ferious  as  he  fhould  be. 

The  Poet,  fpeakingof  God's  Omniprefence,  fays. 
As  full,  as  perfect,  in  vile  Man  that  mourns, 
As  the  rant  Seraph  tliat  adores  and  burns.     1.  269. 

Which  Mr.  PAbbe  has  thus  tranflated, 

Dans  un  homme  ignore  fous  une  humble  chaumiere. 
Que  dans  le  Seraphin,  rayonnant  de  lumiere*. 

That  is,  as  well  in  the  Ignorant  Man,  who  inhabits  an  humble 
Cottage,  as  in  the  Seraphim  encompajed  with  Rays  of  Light.  Our 
Frenchman  here,  in  good  earn  ell:,  thought,  that  a  vile  Man  that 
mourned  could  be  none  but  fome  poor  Inliabitant  of  a  Country  Cot- 
tage. Which  has  betrayed  Mr.  De  Croufaz  into  this  Important  Re- 
mark :  '^For  all  that,  we  fometlmcs  find  in  Perfons  of  the  loweft 
"  Rank,  a  Fund  of  Probity  and  Refignation,  that  preferves  them 
"  from  Contempt ;  their  Minds  are  indeed  but  narrow,  yet  fitted 
^«  to  their  Station,  G?f."  But  Mr.  Pope  had  no  fuch  childifli  Idea 
iu  his  head.     He  was  oppofing  here  the  human  Species  to  the  ange- 

*  Commentaire,  p.  120. 

lie. 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN".  71- 

lie,  and  fo  fpoke  o?  thai,  when  compared  to  this,  ns  vile  and  dlf- 
confolate.  The  Force  and  Beauty  of  the  Refleftlou  depend  on 
this  Senfe,  and,  what  is  more,  the  Propriety  of  it ;  and  it  is  amaz- 
ing that  neither  the  Tranjlator  nor  the  Critic  could  fee  it.  There 
are  manyMiftakes  of  thisNature,  both  of  one  and  the  other,  through- 
out the  T^raiijlalioji  and  the  Comtneniary,  which  perhaps  we  may  have- 
occafion  to  take  notice  of  as  we  proceed. 

In  a  Word,  if  it  were  of  fuch  Men  as  our  Commentator  that  Mr. 
Pope  fpeaks,  when  he  exprefles  his  Contempt  for  Modern  Philofo- 
phers,  he  might  well  fay, 

Yes,  I  defpife  the  Man  to  Books  confin'd, 

Who  from  his  Study  rails  at  human  Kind, 

Though  what  he  learns  he  fpeaks,  and  may  advance 

Some  general  Maxims,  or  be  right  by  Chance. 


letter: 


A    COMMENTARY    ON 


LETTER       11. 


HARD  hath  been  the  Fate  of  our  great  Countryman,  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  fuch  a  Critic  and  Tranjlator.  We  have 
already  feen  how  Mr.  De  Croufaz  hath  difcharged  himfelf.  I 
now  turn  to  M.  r  Abbe  dti  Refnel,  whofe  Sufficiency  at  leaft  equals 
the  Malice  and  Calumny  of  the  other;  and  is  attended  withjuft 
the  fame  Iflue. 

I  have  (Tiewn,  in  my  firft  Letter,  that  this  noble  Prodiiaion  of 
human  Wit  and  Reafon  is  as  fuigular  for  its  philofopliical  ExaBncJs 
cf  Method^  as  for  its  poetical  Sublimity  of  Style. 

Yet  hear  how  our  7>anflator  defcants  upon  the  Matter  :  "  The 
^'  only  reafon  for  which  this  Poem  can  be  properly  termed  an 
"  -E^^>',  is,  that  the  Author  has  net  formed  his  Plan  with  all  the 
*'  Regularity  of  Method  which  it  might  have  admitted." — And 
again, — "  I  would  not  willingly  have  made  ufe,  in  my  Verfion, 
*'  of  any  other  Liberties  than  fuch  as  the  Author  himfelf  muft  have 
*'  taken,  had  he  attempted  a  French  Tranflation  of  his  own  Work  ; 
*'  but  I  was  by  the  unanimous  Opinion  of  all  thofe  whom  I  have 
**  confulted  on  this  Occafion,  and,  amongfl:  thefe,  of  feveral  Eng' 
*'  lijlmen,  compleatly  ikilled  in  both  Languages,  obliged  to  follow 
"■a  dijferent  MetlrJ.  T';6f  French  are  not  fat  iifed  with  Sentiments 
"  however  beautiful,  unlefs  they  are  methodically  difpofed;  Method 
*•  being  the  CharaSleriJlic  that  dfingtiifjes  our  Performances  from  thofe 
"  of  cur  Neighbours,  and  almoft  the  only  Excellence  which  they 

"  agree 


Mr,    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  -^-^ 

'«  agree  to  allow  us.  That  Mr.  Pope  did  not  think  himfelf  cou- 
*'  fined  to  a  regular  Plan,  I  have  already  obferved.  I  have  there- 
*'  fore,  by  a  neceflary  Compliance  with  our  Tafte,  divided  it  into 
'■'■  Five  Cantos  *."  But  the  Reader  will  fee  prefently,  that  our 
Tranflator  was  fo  far  from  being  able  to  judge  of  Mr.  Pope''s  Me- 
thod, that  he  did  not  even  underhand  either  his  SubjeSi  or  his  Scnfe, 
on  which  all  Method  is  to  be  regulated. 

For  I  now  come  to  the  Vot\i\fecond  Epijile.  He  had  fliewn,  in 
Xhefirjl,  that  the  Ways  of  God  are  too  high  for  our  Comprehenfion ; 
whence  he  rightly  concludes,  that 

The  proper  Study  of  Mankind  is  Man. 

This  Conclufon,  from  the  Reafoning  of  the /r/?  Epiftle,  he  metho- 
dically makes  the  Subje£l  of  his  Introduclion  to  xhe  fecond ;  which 
treats  of  Mans  Nature.  But  here  immediately  the  Accufers  of 
Providence  would  be  apt  to  objcfl,  and  fay,  "  Admit  that  we  had 
*'  run  into  an  Extreme,  while  we  pretended  to  cenfure  or  penetrate 
*'  the  Defigns  of  Providence,  a  Matter  indeed  too  high  for  us ;  yet 
*'  have  you  gone  as  fir  into  the  Oppofite,  while  you  only  fend  us  to 
"  the  Knowledge  of  ourfelves.  You  muft  mock  us  when  you  talk 
"  of  this  as  z  Study  ;  for  fure  we  are  intimately  acquainted  with 
*'  ourfelves.  The  proper  Conclufion  therefore  from  your  Demon- 
*«  ftration  of  our  Inability  to  comprehend  the  Ways  of  God,  is, 
*'  that  we  (hould  turn  ourfelves  to  the  Study  of  the  Frame  of  Na- 
"  TURE."  Thus,  I  fay,  would  they  be  apt  to  obje£t ;  for  there  are 
no  Sort  of  Men  more  elate  with  Pride  than  thefe  Freethinkers ;  the 
EfFedts  of  which  the  Poet  hath  fo  well  expofed  in  h\s Ji>Ji  Epiflle, 
efpecially  that  Kind  of  Pride,  which  confifts  in  a  boafted  Know- 
ledge of  their  own  Nature.  Hence  we  fee  the  general  Argument  of 
the  late  Books  againft  Religion  turns  on  a  fuppofed  Inconfiftency 
between  Revelation,  and  what  they  prefume  to  call  the  eternal 
Didates  of  human  Nature.     The  Poet  therefore,  to  convince  them 

*  See  EnglifliTranllation  of  his  Preface, 

Vol,  VI.  L  that 


74  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

that  this  Study  is  lefs  eafy  than  they  imagine,  replies  [from  1.  2  to 
19]  to  the  firji  Part  of  the  Objeaion,  by  defcribing  the  dark  and 
feeble  State  of  the  buf;jaf}  Underfandingy  with  regard  to  the  Kfton-- 
IcJge  of  ourffhcs :  And  farther,  to  ftrengthcn  this  Argument,  he 
fliews,"  In  anfwer  to  xhefecond  Part  of  the  Objeftion  [from  1.  18 
to  31]  that  the  highea  Advances  in  natural  Knowledge  may  be 
eafily  acquired,  and  yet  we  all  the  while  continue  very  ignorant  of 
ourfelvcs.  For  that  neither  the  cle^ref  Science,  which  refults  from 
the  Newtonian  Philofophy,  nor  the  mojl  fublime,  which  is  taught 
by  the  Platonic,  will  at  all  affift  us  in  this  Self-Study  ;  nay,  what 
is  more,  that  Religion  itfelf,  wlien  grown  Fanatical  and  Enihujiajfic, 
will  be  equally  ufelefs  :  though  pure  and  fober  Religion  will  beft 
inftrud  us  in  Man's  Nature,  that  Knowkdge  being  effential  to  Re- 
ligion, whofe  SuSje^i  is  Man,  confidcred  in  all  his  Relations,  and 
confequently  whofe  ObjeSi  is  God. 

To  give  this  fecond  Argument  its  full  Force,  he  illuftrates  It 
[from  1.  30  to  43]  by  the  nobleft  Example  that  ever  was  in  Science, 
the  incomparable  Newton,  whom  he  makes  fo  fuperior  to  Huma- 
nity,  as  to  reprefent  the  Angelic  Beings  In  doubt,  when  tliey  ob- 
ferved  him  of  late  unfold  all  the  Law  of  Nature,  whether  he  was 
not  to  be  reckon'd  in  their  Number;  juft  as  Men,  when  they  fee 
the  furprizing  Marks  of  Reafon  In  an  A^e,  are  almofl  tempted  to 
think  him  of  their  own  Species.  Yet  this  wondroiu  Creature,  who 
faw  fo  far  into  the  Works  of  Nature,  could  go  no  farther  In  hu- 
tnan  Knowledge,  than  the  Generality  of  his  Kind.  For  which 
the  Poet  affigns  this  very  juft  and  adequate  Caufe:  \i\  all  other 
Science?,  the  Underftanding  is  unchecked  and  uncontrouled  by  any 
oppofite  Principle  ;  but  in  the  Science  of  Man,  the  Pafjions  over- 
turn, as  faft  as  Reafon  can  build  up. 

Alas,  what  Wonder  !  Man's  fuperior  Part 
Uiicheck'd  may  rife,  and  climb  from  Art  to  Art ; 
But  when  his  own  great  Work  is  but  begun, 
What  Reafon  weaves,  by  Paffion  is  undone. 

This 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  -js 

This  is  a  brief  Account  of  the  Poet's  fine  Reafoning  in  his  In- 
troduflion.  The  Whole  of  which  his  poetical  Tranflator  has  fo 
miferably  miftaken,  that,  of  one  of  the  moft  ftrong  and  befl  con- 
nefted  i\rguments,  he  has  rendered  it  the  mofl:  obfcure  and  incoii- 
fiftent,  which  even  the  officious  Commentaior  could  fcarce  make 
worfe  by  his  important  and  candid  Remarks.  Thus  bcautlfullv 
does  Mr.  Pope  defcribe  Man's  Weaknefs  and  BJindnefs,  with  regard 
to  his  own  Nature  : 

— Plac'd  on  this  Ifthmus  of  a  middle  State, 

A  Being  darkly  wife,  and  rudely  great  ; 

With  too  much  Knowledge  for  the  Sceptic  Side, 

With  too  much  Weaknefs  for  the  Stoic's  Pricle, 

He  hangs  between ;  in  doubt  to  aft,  or  reft ; 

In  doubt  to  deem  himfelf  a  God,  or  Beafi: ; 

In  doubt,  his  Mind,  or  Body  to  prefer, 

Born  but  to  die,  and  reafoning  but  to  err. 

And  as  he  hath  given  this  Defcription  of  Man,  for  the  very  con- 
trary Purpofe  to  which  Si:cptics  are  wont  to  employ  fuch  Kind  of 
Paintings,  namely,  not  to  deter  Men  from  the  Search,  but  to  ex- 
cite them  to  the  Difcovery  of  Truth ;  he  hath,  with  great  Judg- 
ment, reprefented  Man  as  doubting  and  wavering  between  the  right 
and  ivrong  Object ;  from  which  State  tliere  are  great  Hopes  he  may 
be  relieved  by  a  careful  and  circumfped  Ufe  of  Reafon.     On  the 
contrary,  had  he  fuppofed  Man  io  blind  as  to  be  bufied  in  chufing, 
or  doubtful  in  his  Choice,  between  two  Objedts  equally  ivrong,  the 
Cafe   had  appeared   defperate  ;    and    all    Study  of  Man  had   been 
effeftually  dijcouraged.    But  his  Tranflator  not  feeing  into  the  Force 
and  Beauty  of  this  Condud,  hath  run  Into  the  very  Abfurdity  I 
have  here  fliewn  Mr.  Pope  hath  fo  artfully  avoided. 
The  Poet  fays, 

Man  hangs  between  ;  in  doubt  to  Act,  or  Rest. 

Now  he  tells  us  'tis  Man's  Duty   to  A^,    not    to  Rcjl,    as   the 
L  2  Stoks 


-6  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

Sioics  thought;  aiul  to  their  Principle  this  Litter  Word  allude?, 
he  having  juft  before  mentioned  that  Sec!  *,  whofe  Virtue,  as  he 
fnvs,  Is 

—  fix' J  as  in  a  Froft  ; 

Contracted  all,  retiring  to  the  Breaft : 

But  Strength  ot  Mind  is  Exercise,  not  Rcji.     I.  92,  ^Z'?- 

But  the  Tranflator  Is  not  for  mincing  Matters. 
Serolt-ll  en  naiflhnt  au  travail  condamne  ? 
Aux  douceurs  du  repos  feroit-il  deftine  ! 

According  to  him,  Man  doubts  whether  he  be  condemned  to  a 
Jlavijh  Toil  and  Labour ^  or  deftined  to  the  Luxury  of  Repofe  ;  nei- 
ther of  which  Is  the  Condition  whereto  Providence  defigned  him. 
This  therefore  contradlfts  the  Poet's  whole  Purpofe,  which  Is  to  re- 
commend the  Study  of  Man,  on  a  Suppofitlon  that  it  will  enable 
him  to  determine  rightly  in  his  Doubts  between  the  true  zwdLfalfe 
Object.     'Tis  on  this  Account  he  fays. 

Alike  In  Ignorance,  his  Reafon  fuch. 

Whether  he  thinks  too  little,  or  too  tnuch  ; 

Chaos  of  Thought  and  Paflion,  all  confus'd. 

Still  by  himfelf  abus'd,  or  difabus'd, 

i.  e.  the  proper  Sphere  of  his  Reafon  is  fo  narrow,  and  the  Exer- 
cife  of  it  fo  nice,  that  the  too  immoderate  Ufe  of  it  is  attended 
with  the  fame  Ignorance  that  proceeds  from  the  not  ufing  it  at  all. 
Vet,  though  in  both  thefe  Cafes,  he  is  abufed  by  himfelf,  he  has  it 
Aill  in  his  own  Power  to  difabufe  himfcif,  in  making  his  PaJJions 
fubfervlcnt  to  the  Means,  and  regulating  his  Reafon  by  the  End  of 
Life.  Mr.  Be  Croujaz  himfclf  had  fome  Glimmering  of  the  Ab- 
furdity  of  thofe  two  Lines  of  the  Tranflator  :  And  becaufe  he  fliall 
not  fay,  I  allow  him  to  have  fald  nothing  reafonable  throughout 
his   whole  Commentary,    I  will  here   tranfcribe  his  very  Words : 

*  With  too  much  Wcaknefs  for  the  Stoics  Piide. 

*«Ce 


Mr.    P  O  P  E'S    essay    ON    MAN.  j-j 

•*  Ce  qui  fait  encore,  que  les  Antithefes  frapciit  au  lieu  d'inAruire, 
"  c'efl:  qu'elles  font  outrces.  U Homme  n  alt -II  condamr.c  au  travail? 
"  Doh-il  Je  pnmtire  la  molefje  et  le  repos?  Quel  fujet  de  decou- 
*'  ragement  ou  de  trouble,  fi  Ton  n'avoit  de  choix  qu'cntre  deux 
*■'  partis  fi  contraires  ?  Mais  nous  ne  naiflbns  ni  deflines  h.  ua 
*'  repos  oilif,  ni  condamnes  a  un  travail  accablant  et  inhumain.'* 
p.  138- 

Again,  Mr.  Pope, 

h\  doubt  to  deem  himfclf  a  God,  or  BcaJ}.- 

/..  e.  He  doubts,  as  appears  from  the  Line  immediately  following 
this  *,  whether  his  Soul  be  Mortal  or  Immortal',  one  of  which  is 
the  Truth,  namely,  its  Immortality,  as  the  Poet  himfelf  teaches, 
when  he  fpeaks  of  the  Omniprefence  of  God  : 

Breathes  in  our  Soul,  informs  our  mortal  F^wt.      i  Ep.  I.  267». 

The  Tranflator,  as  we  fay,  unconfcious  of  the  Poet's  Purpcfe, 
rambles,  as  before  : 

Tantot  de  fon  efprit  admirant   I'Excellcnce, 
11  penfe  qu'il  eft  Dieu,  qu^il  en  a  la  puijfance  ; 
Et  tantot  gemiflant  des  befoins  de  fon  Corps, 
II  croit  que  de  la  brute,  il  n'a  que  les  rejbrts.. 

Here  his  Head  (turned  to  a  fceptical  View)  was  running  on  the 
different  Extravagances  of  Plato  in  his  Divinliy,  and  of  Des  Cartes 
in  his  Philofophy.  Sometimes,  fays  he,  Man  thinks  himfelf  a  real 
God,  and  fometimes  again  a  meer  Machine ;  Things  quite  out  of 
Mr.  Pope's  Thoughts  in  this  Place. 

Again,  the  Poet,  in  a  beautiful  AUufion  to  the  Sentiments  and 
Words  of  Scripittre,  breaks  out  into  this  juft  and  moral  Refledlion 
upon  Mans  Condition  here, 

Born  but  to  die,  and  reafoning  but  to  err, 

*  In  doubt  his  MLid  or  Botiy  to  prefer. 

The: 


^8  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

Tiic  Traiidiitor  turns  tliis  fine  and  fober  Thouglit  into  the  moft 
outrageous  Sceptic! fm ; 

Cc  n'eft  que  pour  mourir,  qu'il  eft  nc,  qu'il  rcfpire, 
Et  tJUtfa  raijon  nejl  pre/jue  qJiun  dclire  : 

and  fo  makes  his  Author  dircdlly  contradift  himfcif,  where  he  fays 
of  Man,  that  he  hath 

— too  much  Kiiowledge  for  the  Sceptic  Side. 

Strange  !  tliat  the  Trandator  could  not  fee  his  Author's  Meaning 
was,  that,  as  we  are  horn  to  die  and  yet  enjoy  fome  fmall  Portion 
of  Lite  ;  fb,  though  we  reajon  to  err,  yet  we  comprdiend  fome  few 
Truths.  Strange  I  that  he  could  not  fee  the  Difference  between 
that  weak  State  of  Reafon,  in  which  Error  mixes  itfelf  with  all  its 
true  Conclufions  concerning  Man's  Nature  ;  and  an  abjiraSl  ^iality\ 
"jcbkb  ive  lainh  call  Renfon,  but  which,  he  tells  us,  is  indeed fcarce 
any  thing  elfe  but  Mddnefs,  One  would  think  he  paid  little  Atteji- 
tion  to  the  concluding  Words  of  this  fublime  Defcription,  where 
the  Poet  tells  us,  Man  was 

Created  half  to  rife,  and  half  to  fall; 

Great  Lord  of  all  Things,  yet  a  Prey  to  all ; 

Sole  Judge  of  Truth,  in  endlefs  Error  hurl'd : 

Tiie  Glory,  Jeft,  and  Riddle  of  the  World. 

Lideed  he  paid  fo  much,  as  to  contrive  how  he  might  pervert  them 
to  a  Senfc  confident  with  his 

Et  tout  fa  raifou  n'eft  prefque  qu'un  delire : 
Which  he  does  in  thefe  Words : 

Tantoc  feu,  tantot  fage,  il  ciiange  a  chaque  Instant. 
This  is  indeed  making  a  Madman  of  this  fole  Judge  of  Truth,  to 
all  Intents  and  Purpofes.  But  Mr.  Pope  fays  nothing  of  his  chang- 
ing every  Moment  from  Sage  to  Fool;  he  only  fays,  that  Folly  and 
Wifdom  are  the  infeparate  Partage  of  Humanity:  Which  is  quite 
aaotlicr  Thing. 

But 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY    ON     MAN.  ;^ 

But  M'.jlahs,  like  Misfortunes,  feldom  come  fmgle;  and  the  rea- 
fon  is  the  fame^  in  both  cafes,  becnufe  they  iuflueuce  one  another. 
For  the  Traiiflator,  having  miftaken  both  tlie  Nature  and  End  of 
the  Defcrrption  of  the  Weaknefs  of  human  Nature,  imagined 
the  Poet's  y^coW  Argument  for  the  Difficulty  of  the  Study  of  Man  y. 
which  (hews,  that  the  clearc/l  znd  fublimeji  Science  is  no  Afliftance 
to  It,  nor  even  Religion  itfelf,  when  grown  Fanatical  and  Enchu" 
Jt-'fic;  he  imagined,  I  fay,  that  this  fine  Argument  was  an  I'luf 
/rrt//(9«  only  of  the  foregoing  Defcription,  in  which  Illuftration,  In- 
ftances  were  given  of  the  feveral  Extravagances  in  fa  fa  Science ; 
whereas  the  Poet's  Defign  was,  juft  the  contrary,  to  fhew  the  pro- 
digious Vigour  of  the  human  Mind,  in  Studies  which  do  not  relate 
to  itfelf;  and  yet  that  all  its  Force,  together  with  thofe  Effeds  of  i^v 
avail  little  in  this  Inquiry. 

But  there  was  another  Caufe  of  the  Tranjlators  Error;  he  had 
milkken,  as  we  fay,  the  Poet's  ^ry?  Argument   for   a   Defcription- 
of  the  Weaknefs  of  the   human  xMind  with  regard  to  all  Truth  ;. 
whereas   it  is.  only   fuch  with  regard  to  the  Knowledge  of  Man^s 
Nature.     This   led  him,  as   it   would  feem,  to  conclude,  that,  if 
Mr.  Fcpe  were  to  be  underrtood  as  fpeaking  here  in  Yix^fecond  Argu- 
ment,   of  real   and  great  Progrefs  in   Science,  it  would  contradict 
what  had  been  faid  in  the  Defcription  ;  and  therefore,  out  of  Ten- 
dernefs  to  his  Author,,  he  turns  it  all  to  imaginary  Hypothefes.. 
Let  \is  take  the  whole  Context. 
L 
Go,  wondrous  Creature  !  mount  where  Science  guides^ 
Go  meafure  Earth,  weigh  Air,  and  ftate  the  Tides  ; 
Shew  by  what  Laws  the  wand'ring  Planets  ftray, 
Corredl  old  Time,  and  teach  the  Sun  his  Way. 

II. 

Go  foar,  with  Plato,  to  th'  Empyreal  Sphere, 
To  the  firfl:  Good,,  firft  Perfea,  and  firfl  Fair  ; 

III. 


3o  ACOMMENTARYON 

III. 

Or  tread  the  mazy  Round  Iiis  Followers  trod. 

And  c|uittlng  Sonic  call  imitating  God. 

Go  teach  eternal  Wifdom  how  to  rule, 

Thcii  drop  Into  thylelf,  and  be  a  Fool. 
Mr.  Pope,  fays,  Go,  icondrous  Creature ;  and  he  never  fpeaks  at 
random.  The  Reafon  of  his  giving  Man  this  Epithet  is,  becaufe, 
though  he  be,  as  tlie  Poet  fays,  in  another  Place  *,  little  Icfs  than 
yingel  in  his  Faculties  of  Science,  yet  is  he  mlfcrably  blind  in 
the  Knowledge  of  himfelf.  But  the  Tranjlator  not  apprehend- 
ing the  Poet's  Thought,  imagined  it  was  faid  Ironically,  and  io 
tranflates  it ; 

Va,  fublime  Mortel,  fier  dc  ton  EKcellence, 

AV  crois  rlen  d'impojfible  a  ton  IntelUgenc:. 

Mr.  Pope— 

— Mount  where  Science  guides. 
Go  meafure  Earth,  weigh  Air,  and  ftate  the  Tides  ; 
Shew  by  what  Laws  the  wand'ring  Planets  ftray  ; 
Correft  old  Time,  and  teach  the  Sun  his  Way. 

This  is  a  Defcrlpt'ion  of  the  real  Advances  in  Science,  fuch  as 
the  Nczvtonh}!.  And  the  very  Introduftion  to  it, — Mount  where 
Science  guides,  (hews  it  to  be  fo. 

But  the  Tranflator,  carried  away  with  the  Fancy  of  its  being  an 
IlluJ}ration  of  the  foregoing  Defcrlption,  turns  the  Whole  to  vain, 
Jalfe,  imiiglnary  Science,  fuch  as  that  of  Des  Cartes  : 

Le  Compas  a  la  main,  mefure  Tuniverfe  ; 

Regie  a  ton  gre  le  flux  et  le  reflux  des  mersj 

Fixe  le  poids  de  i'air,  et  comnmnde  aux  planetes  ; 

'Determine  le  cows  de  leurs  marches  fecretes ; 

»  Ep.  i.l.  1 66. 

Soumets 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  8j 

Soutnets  a  ton  calcul  rObfcurite  des  tems, 
Et  de  TAftre  du  jour  conduis  les  moveniens. 

Here,  In  order  to  add  the  greater  ridicule  to  his  falfe  Senfe,  he  in- 
troduces the  Phllofopher,  with  Compafs  in  hand,  meafuring  the  Uni- 
verfe,  mimicking  the  Office  of  God  in  the  A6t  of  Creation,  as  he 
is  reprefented  by  the  Ancients,  who  ufed  to  fay,  'O  Geo?  yiunilfiT. 
Whereas  Mr.  Pope's  Words  are, 
Go  meafure  Earth— ^ 

Alkidlng  to  the  noble  and  ufeful  Projeft  of  the  modern  Mathe- 
maticians to  meafure  a  Degree  at  the  Equator  and  the  polar  Circle, 
in  order  to  determine  the  true  Figure  of  the  Earth,  of  great  Im- 
portance to  Aflronomy  and  Navigation. 

Regulate,  fays  he,  accorditig  to  your  own  Will,  the  Flux  and  Re- 
Jlux  of  the  Sea  ;  and  this,  Des  Cartes  prefumed  to  do :  But  it  was 
Newton  thztjlated  the  Tides.  It  is  the  pretended  Phllofopher  ihzt  jixes 
the  Weight  of  the  Air  ;  but  the  real  Phllofopher  that  weighs  Air. 
It  was  Des  Cartes  that  commanded  the  Planets,  and  determined 
them  to  roll  according  to  his  own  good  Pleafure  j  but  it  was  Newton 
who 

Shew''d  by  what  Laws  the  zvand'ring  Planets  fray. 

Submit,  fays  the  Tranflator,  the  Obfcurity  of  Time  to  your  Calcu- 
iation. — ^The  Poet  fays. 

Correal  old  Time, 
He  is  here  ftill  fpeaking  of  Newton.  CorreSf  old  Time  alludes 
to  that  great  Man's  Grecian  Chronclogy,  which  he  reformed  on 
thofe  two  fublime  Conceptions,  the  Difference  between  the  Reigns 
of  Kings,  and  the  Generations  of  Men,  and  the  Pof  lions  of  the 
Colures  of  the  Equinox  and  Solftices,  at  the  time  of  the  Argonautic 
Expedition. 

And  when  the  Tranflator  comes  to  the  third  Inftance,  which 
is  that  of  falfe  Religion,  he  introduceth  It  thus, 
Et  joignant  la  folie  a  la  iemcritt\ 

Vol.  VI.  M  Which 


62  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

W'hlcli  rticws  how  ill  he  underftootl  Mr.  Pope's  luftaiices  of  the 
h'aturjl  Philofophy  of  Newton,  and   the   Melaphyfical  Phihfophy  of 
Phto.     And  yet  all  tiie  Juftnefi,  tiie  Force,  and  Sublimity  of  the 
Poet's  Rcafoiiing  confifl:  in  a  right  Apprehenfion  of  them. 
Mr.  Pope- 
Go  teach  Eternal  Wifdom  how  to  rule, 
Tlien  drop  into  thyfelf,  and  be  a  Fool. 
Thefc  tnvo  Lines  have  only  contributed  to  keep  the  Tranflator 
in  his  Error ;  for  he  took  the  frjl  of  them  to  be  a  Recapitulaliofi  of 
all  that  had  been  faid  from  1.  18.     Whereas  Both  of  them  together, 
are  a  Ccnclujion  from  it,    to  this   EfFe£l :    "  Go  now,    vain   Man, 
•'  elated  with  thy  Acquirements  in  real  Science  and  imaginary  In- 
"  timacy  with  God  ;  Go  and  run  into  all  the  Extravagances   I 
*'  have  exploded   in  the  firft  Epiftle,    where  thou   pretendedfl:   to 
*«  teach   Providence  how  to  govern  ;    then  drop  into  the  Obfcu- 
**  ritics  of  thy  own  Nature,  and  thereby  manifefl  thy  Ignorance 
«'  and  Folly." 

Mr.  Pope  tlien  confirms  and  illuflrates  this  Reafoning  by  one  of 
the  greateft  Examples  that  ever  was : 

Superior  Beings,  when  of  late  they  faw 
A  mortal  Man  unfold  all  Nature's  Law, 
Admir'd  fuch  Wifdom  in  an  earthly  Shape, 
And  (hew'd  a  Newton,  as  we  fhew  an  Ape. 
In  thcfe  Lines  he  fpeaks  to  this  EfFe6i:. — "  But  to  make  you 
"  fully  fcnfible  of  the  Difficulty  of  this  Study,  I  fhall  inftance  in  the 
"  great  Xtf/(?«  himfelf;  whom  when    fuperior  Beings,  not  long 
♦*  fince,  faw  capable  of  unfolding  the  wliole  Law  of  Nature,  they 
"  were  in  doubt  whether  the  Owner  of  fuch   prodigious  Science 
•*  fhould  not  be  reckoned  of  their  own  Order;  juft  as  Men,  when 
"  they  fee  the  furpriiing  Marks  of  Reafon  in   an  Ape,  are  almoft 
♦«  tempted  to  rank  him  with  their  own  Kind.     And  yet  this  won- 
•'  drous  Man  could  go  no  farther  in  the  Knowledge  of  his  own  Na- 
"  tore,  than  the  Generality  of  his  Species." 

Thus 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  S^ 

Thus  ftands  the  Argument,  in  which  the  Poet  has  paid  a  higher 
Comphment  to  the  great  Newion,  as  well  as  a  more  ingenious, 
than  was  ever  yet  paid  him  by  any  of  his  moft  zealous  Followers  : 
Yet  the  Tranflator,  now  quite  in  the  dark,  by  Millake  upon  Mlf- 
take,  imagined  his  Defign  was  to  depreciate  Newton  s  Knowledge, 
and  to  humble  the  Pride  of  his  Followers :  Which  hath  made  him 
play  at  crofs  Purpofes  with  his  Original : 

Des  celeftes  Efprits  la  vive  Intelligence 

Regarde  avec  pitie  notre  fcible  Science ; 

Newton,  le  grand  Nezvton,  que  nos  admirons  tous. 

Eft  peut-etre  pour  eux,  ce  qu'un  Singe  eft  pour  nous. 

•'  The  heavenly  Spirits,  whofe  Underftanding  is  fo  far  fuperior 
•'  to  ours,  look  down  with  Pity  on  the  Weaknefs  of  human 
*'  Science ;  Newton,  tlie  great  Newton,  whom  we  ^o  much  ad- 
"  mire,  is  perhaps  in  no  higher  Efteem  with  them,  than  an  Ape 
*'  is  with  us." 

But  it  is  not  their  Pity,  but  their  Admiration,  that  is  the  Subject 
in  Queftion  :  And  it  was  for  no  flight  Caufe  they  admired;  it  was 
to  fee  a  mortal  Man  unjo'd  the  whole  haw  of  Nature  :  which,  by 
the  way,  might  have  fliewn  the  Tranflator,  tiiat  the  Poet  was 
fpeaking  of  real  Science  in  the  foregoing  Paragraph.  Nor  was  it: 
Mr.  Pope's  Intention  to  bring  any  of  the  Ape's  ^alities,  but  its 
Sagacity,  into  the  Comparifon.  But  why  the  Ape's,  it  may  be 
faid,  rather  than  the  Sagacity  of  fome  more  decent  Animal ;  par- 
ticularly the  half-rcafoning  'Elephant,  as  the  Poet  calls  it,  which,  as 
well  on  Account  of  this  its  Superiority,  as  for  its  having  no  ri- 
diculous Side,  like  the  Ape,  on  which  it  could  be  viewed,  feems 
better  to  have  deferved  this  Honour  ?  I  reply,  Becaufe  as  none 
but  a  Shape  refembling  human,  accompanied  with  great  Sagacity, 
could  occafion  the  Doubt  of  that  Animal's  relation  to  Man,  the 
Ape  only  having  that  Refemblance,  no  other  Animal  was  fitted  for 
the  Comparifon.  And  on  thi;j  Ground  of  Relation  the  whole  Beauty 
of  the  Thought  depends ;  Nezvton,  and  thofe  fuperior  Beings  being 

M  2,  equally 


8+  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

equally  immortal  Spirits,  though  of  different  Orders.  And  here 
let  me  t.ikc  notice  of  a  new  Sptcies  of  the  Sublime^  of  which  our 
Pixt  mny  be  juftly  (aid  to  be  the  Maker ;  fo  new  that  we  have  yet 
no  Name  fur  it,  though  of  a  Nature  diftind  from  every  other 
poetical  Excellence.  The  two  great  Perfeftions  of  Works  of  Ge- 
nius arc  fFit  and  Sublhni'.y.  Many  Writers  have  been  ivitty,  feveraL 
have  hccn/ui/imff  and  fome  few  have  even  poflefled  both  thefe 
Qu^Ut'xci  Jl'fiarately.  But  none  that  I  know  of,  bcfides  our  Poet, 
hath  had  the  Art  to  incorporiite  them.  Of  which  he  hath  given 
many  Examples,  both  in  this  Eflay,  and  in  his  other  Poems.  One 
of  the  noblcfl  being  the  Paflage  in  Queftion.  This  feems  to  be 
the  laft  Effort  of  the  Imagination,  to  poetical  Perfedion.  And  in 
this  compounded  Excellence  the  Wit  receives  a  Dignity  from  the 
Sublime,  and  the  Sublime  a  Splendour  from  the  Wit ;  which,  in 
their  State  of  feparate  Exiftence,  they  both  wanted. 

To  return.  This  Miftake  feems  to  have  led  both  the  Tranjlator 
and  Commentator  into  a  much  worfe ;  into  a  ftrange  Imagination 
that  Mr.  Pope  had  here  refleaed  upon  Sir  I[aac  Newton's  moral 
Chnraaer  ;  which  the  Poet  was  as  far  from  doing,  as  the  Philofop 
pher  was  from  deferving  :  For, 

After  Mr.  Pope  had  {hewn,  by  this  llluftrious  Inftance,  that  a 
great  Genius  might  make  prodigious  Advances  in  the  Knowledge 
of  Nature,  and^  at  the  fame  time  remaui  very  ignorant  of  him- 
Jclf,  he  gives  a  Reafon  for  it :— -In  all  other  Sciences  the  Under- 
ftanding  has  no  oppofite  Principle  to  cloud  and  biafs  it ;  but  in 
the  Knowledge  of  Man,  the  PaJJions  obfcure  as  foft  as  Reafon  can 
clear  up. 

Could  he,  whofe  Rules  the  rapid  Comet  bind, 
Dcfcrlbe,  or  fix,  one  Movement  of  the  Mind  ? 
Who  faw  thofe  Fires  here  rife,  and  there  defend*. 
Explain  his  own  Beginning,  or  his  End  ? 

Alas, 

_    •  Sir  ^.-.  Ke-.,on  in  cnlcula.ing  the  niodiy  of  a  C.,w/'.  Mo'tion,  and  the  Courfe 
K  dcfcnbcs,  when  it  becomes  v.fiblc  in  its  Dcfcent  to,  and  Afceut  from  the  Sun,  con- 

jeflured, 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.        8j 

Alas,  what  Wonder !  Man's  fuperlor  Part 
Uncheck'd  may  rife,  and  climb   from  Art  to  Art; 
But  when  his  Own  great  Work  is  but  begun. 
What  Reafon  weaves,  by  Paffion  is  undone. 

Here  we  fee,  at  the  fifth  Line,  the  Poet  turns  from  Kczv/ofi, 
and  fpeaks  of  Man  and  his  Nature  in  general.  But  the  TrafiJIaior 
applies  all  tliat  follows  to  that  Philofopher  : 

Toi  qui  jufques  aux  cieux  ofes  porter  ta  vue. 
Qui  crois  en  concevoir  et  I'ordre  et  I'etendue, 
Toi  qui  veux  dans  leur  cours,  leur  prefcrire  la  loi, 
Scais-tu  regler  ton  coeur,  f9ais-tu  regner  fur  toi  I 
Ton  efprit  qui  far  tout  vainement  fe  fatigue, 
Avide  de  f^avoir,  ne  connoit  point  de  digue  ; 
De  quoi  par  fes  travaux  s'eft-il  rendu  certain  E 
Peut-il  te  decouvrir  ton  principe  et  ta  fin  ? 

On  which  the  Commentator  thus  candidly  remarks ;  "  It  is  not 
"-  to  be  difputed,  but  that  whatever  Progrefs  a  great  Genius  [hath' 
"  made  in  Science,  he  deferves  rather  Cenfure  than  Applaufe,  if 
"  he  has  fpent  that  Time  in  barren  Speculations,  curious  indeed,., 
"  but  of  little  Ufe,  which  he  fhould  have  employ 'd  to  know  him- 
*'  felf,  &!S  Beginning  and  his  EW,  and  how  to  regulate  his  Con- 
"  du£l: ;  and  if,  inflead  of  that  Candour  and  Humanity,  and  Defire 
**  to  oblige.  Virtues  fo  becoming  our  Nature,  he  be  over-run  with 
*'  Ambition,  Envy,  and  a  Rage  of  Preheminence,  whofe  Violence 
*'  and  Rancour  are  attended  with  the  moft  fcandalous  Effeds,  of 
"  which  there  are  too  many  Inflances  ;  Vices  lohich  Mr.  Newton, 
"  lived  and  died  an  entire  Stranger  to  "*.'* 

jeftiired,  with  the  higheft  Appearance  of  Truth,  that  they  revoh-e  peipetually  round 
the  Sun,  in  EUip/cs  vaflly  excentrical,  and  very  nearly  approaching   to  Parabola!..     In 
which  he  was  greatly  confirmed,  in  obferving  between  two  Comets   a   Coincidence  ia; 
their  Perihdions,  and  a  perfeft  Agreement  in  their  Velocities.- 
*  Commeutaire,  p.  147, 

I  hav^ 


U  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

1  hnve  traiifcribcd  this  Paflage  to  expolc  the  malignant  Motives 
tlic  Commentator  appears  to  have  had  in  writing  againft  the  Efay  on 
Man.  As  to  the  TranJIa/or,  it  would  be  indeed  harder  to  know 
what  Motives  he  could  have  in  tranflating  it,  for  It  is  plain  he 
did  not  underftand  it.  Yet  this  is  he  who  tells  us,  that  t/je  Author 
of  the  Epy  has  not  formed  his  Plan  with  all  the  Regularity  of  Me- 
t  ho  J  which  it  wight  have  admitted;  thai  he  laas  obliged  to  follow  a 
different  Method;  for  that  the  French  are  not  fatisfied  ivith  Senti- 
ments hoivever  beautiful,  unlifs  they  be  meihodical'y  difpofed.  Method 
being  the  Characlerijlic  that  diftmguifies  their  Performances  from  thofe 
cf  their  Neighbours, 

Thus  neither  did  the  Critic,  nor  Tranfator,  fufped  (and  never 
tvere  poor  Men  fo  miferably  bit)  that 

Thofe  oft'  nre  Stratagems  which  Errors  feem. 
Nor  is  it  Hmier  nods,  but  we  that  dream. 

The  poetical  Tranflator  could  not  imagine  Ho  great  a  Poet  would 
pique  himf(.lf  upon  clofe  Reafoning ;  and  the  faftidious  Philofo- 
pher,  of  courfe,  concluded,  that  a  Man  of  fo  much  Wit  could 
hardly  reafon  well ;  fo  neither  of  them  gave  a  proper  Attention  to 
the  Poet's  Syftem,  A  Syftem  logically  .clofe,  though  wrote  iu 
Verfe,  and  complete,  though  ftudioufly  concife  :  This  fecond  Epiftle 
particularly  (the  Subjea  of  the  prelent  Letter)  containing  the 
trueft,  cleareft,  fhorteft,  and  confequently  the  heft  Account  of  the 
Origin,  Ufc,  and  End  of  the  Paflions,  that  is,  in  my  Opinion, 
any  where  to  be  met  with.  Which  I  jiow  proceed  to  conlider,  iu 
the  fame  flridl  Manner  I  have  fcrutinjzed  the  IntroduBion.  For  our 
Poet's  Works  want  nothing  but  to  be  fairly  examined  by  the  fe- 
vcreft  Rules  of  Logic  and  good  Philofophy,  to  become  as  llluf- 
♦  rlous  for  their  Senfe,  as  they  have  long  been  for  their  Wit  and 
Poetry. 

I  go  on  therefore  to  the  Body  of  the  Dlfcourfe  ;  which,  as  plain 
.ns  it  is,  I  find  Mr.  De  Croufaz  has  made  a  Shift  (though  extremely 
tree  with  his  Infinuatlons  of  Irrellglon  and  Spino%ifm)   to  mlftake 

from 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  87 

from  End  to  End,     So  true  is  the  old  Saying,  Homme  imperito  tiihil 
eji  iniquius. 

The  Poet  having  thus  Hiewn  the  Difficulty  attending  the  Study 
of  Mart,  proceeds  to  our  Afliftance  in  laying  before  us  the  Elements 
or  true  Principle  of  this  Science,  m  an  Account  of  the  Origin,  Ufc, 
and  End,-  of  the  Paflions..  He  begins  [from  I.  42  to  49]  with 
pointing  out  the  two  grand  Principles  in  human  Nature,  Self-Love 
and  Reason.  Defcribes  their  ^f/ii?/-*?/ Nature  :  The  firftyf/j  Man 
upon  adling,.  the  other  regulates  his  yi£iion.  However,  tliefe  Prin- 
ciples are  natural,  not  moral :  And,  therefore,  in  themfelves^  neither- 
good  nor  bad;  hut  Jo,  only  as  they  are  dire£led. 

Nor  this  z  good,  nor  thzt  z  dad  we  call, 

Each  works  its  End,  to  move  or  govern  all ;, 

And  to  their  proper  Operation  ftilL- 

Afcribe  all  Good,  to  tiieir  improper'Ill. 

This  Obfervation  is  made  with  great  Judgment,  in  Oppofition 
to  the  defperate  Folly  of  thofe  Fanatics,  who,  as  xX\t  Afcetic,.  pre- 
tend to  eradicate  Self-Love  ;  as  the  Myjtic,  Avould  flifle  Reafon  ;  and' 
both,  on  the  abfurd  Fancy  of  their  being  moral,  not  natural  Prin^ 
cipjes.. 

The  Poet  proceeds  [from  1.  48  to  57]  more  minutely  to  mark  out 
the  diflindl  Offices  of  thefe  two  Principles,  which  he  had  before 
afligned  only  in  general;  and  here  he  fhews  their  NeceJJily;  iov 
without  Self  Love,  as  the  Spring,  Man  would  be  una^ive,.^nd  with- 
out Reafon,  as  the  Balance,  active  to  no  Purpofe. 

Fixt  like  a  Plant  on  his  peculiar  Spot, 

To  draw  Nutrition,  propagate,  and  rot : 

Or,  Meteor-like,  flame  lawlefs  through  the  Void,, 

Deftroying  others,  by  hlmfelf  deftroy'd.. 

Having  thus  explained  the  Ends  and  Offices  of  eacli  Principle,,  he 
goes  on  [from  1.  56  to  69]  to  fpeak  of  their  ^^////Vi :  And  (Hews> 
how  they  are  fitted  to  difcharge  thofe  Fun6lions,  and  anfwer  their; 

refpecliva.- 


8S  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

rcfpeaivc  Intentions.  The  Bufinefs  of  Self-Love  being  to  excite  to 
Adioii,  it  is  quick  and  impetuous;  and  moving  infUndively,  has, 
like  AttraBion,  its  Force  prodigloufly  increafed  as  the  Objefb  ap- 
proaches, and  proportionably  leflencd  as  that  recedes.  On  the 
contrary,  Rea/an,  like  the  Author  of  Attradlion,  is  always  calm  and 
fedate,  and  equally  preferves  itfelf,  whether  the  Objea  be  near,  or 
far  off.  Hence  the  oto^vw^  Principle  is  made  moxtjlrong-,  though 
the  rejlraming  be  more  quick-fghted.  The  Confequence  he  draws 
from  this  is,  that,  if  we  would  not  be  carried  away  to  our  Deftruc- 
tion,  we  muft  always  keep  Reafon  upon  Guard. 

But  it  would  be  objedled,  that  if  this  Account  be  true,  human 
Life  would  be  moji  miferable,  and,  even  in  the  wifeft,  a  perpetual 
Conflicl  between  Reafon  and  the  Pafjions.  To  this  therefore  the 
Poet  replies  [from  1.  68  to  71.]  F/r/?,  that  Providence  has  fo  gra- 
cioufly  contrived,  that  even  in  the  voluntary  Exercife  o{  Reafon,  as 
in  the  mere  mechanic  Motion  of  a  Limb,  Habit  makes  that,  which 
was  at  firft  done  with  Pain,  eafy  and  natural.  And,  fecondly,  that 
the  Experience  gained  by  the  long  Exercife  of  Reafon  goes  a  great 
Way  towards  eluding  the  Force  of  Self-love.  Now,  the  attending  to 
Reafon.,  as  here  recommended,  will  gain  us  this  Habit  and  Rxpe- 
rlence. 

Attention,  Habit  and  Experience  gains  ; 

Each  ftrengthens  Reafon,  and  Self-love  reflralns. 

Hence  it  appears,  that  this  Station  in  which  Reafon  Is  to  be  kept 
conflantly  upon  Guard,  is  not  fo  uneafy  a  one  as  may  be  at  firfl 
Imagined. 

From  this  Defcriptlon  o'[  Self-love  und  Reafon  It  follows,  as  the 
Poet  obferves  [from  1.  70  to  83]  that  both  confpire  to  one  End, 
namely,  human  Happinefs,  though  they  be  not  equally  expert  In  the 
Choice  of  the  Means  ;  the  Difference  being  this,  that  xhefrfl  haftily 
felzes  every  thing  which  has  the  Appcarajice  of  Good ;  the  other 
weighs  and  examines  whether  it  be  indeed  what  it  appears. 

This 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  89 

This  fliews,  as  he  next  obfcrves,  the  Folly  oiVac  Schoolmen,  who 
confider  them  as  two  oppofite  Principles,  the  one  Good,  and  the  other 
111:  The  Obfervation  is  fealbnable  and  judicious;  for  this  dangerous 
School-Opinion  gives  great  Support  to  the  Manlchean  or  Zoroajlran 
Error,  the  Confutation  of  which  was  one  of  the  Author's  chief 
Ends  of  Writing.  For  if  there  be  two  Principles  in  Man,  a  good 
and  bad,  it  is  natural  to  think  him  the  joint  Produdt  of  the  two  • 
Manichean  Deities  (the  firfl:  of  which  contributed  to  his  Reafon,  the 
other  to  his  FaJJions)  rather  than  the  Creature  of  one  individual 
Caufe.  This  was  Plutarclj's  Notion,  and,  as  we  may  fee  in  him, 
of  the  more  ancient  Manlcheans.  It  was  of  Importance  therefore  to 
reprobate  and  fubvert  a  Notion  that  ferved  to  the  Support  of  fo 
dangerous  an  Error.  And  this  the  Poet  has  done  with  more  Force 
and  Clearuefs  than  is  often  to  be  found  in  whole  Volumes  wrote  againll 
that  heretical  Opinion  : 

Let  fubtile  Schoolmen  teach  thefe  Friends  to  fight. 

More  fludious  to  divide,  than  to  unite  ; 

And  Grace  and  Virtue,  Senfe  and  Reafon  Tplit, 

With  all  the  raOi  Dexterity  of  Wit. 

3ut  the  French  Tranflator  has  miftaken  thefe  Lines  for  a  Reflec- 
tion, not  on  the  Theology,  as  Mr.  Pope  intended  them,  but  on  the 
Logic  of  the  Schools,  with  which  the  Poet  had  here  nothing  to  do. 
This,  it  is  true,  delights  in  Dl/litiSilons  without  Difference,  which 
Is  indeed  a  Fault,  but  not  of  fo  high  Malignity  as  the  other  :  that, 
which  the  Poet  cenfures,  leading  direftly  into  Error ;  this,  which 
his  Tranflator  reproves,  only  hindering  our  Progrefs  in  Truth  or 
■Science. 

Qu'un  Scholaftique  vain  cherchant  "kdifcourir 
Cache  la  Verite  loin  de  la  decouvrir, 
Que,  par  un  long  iljfu  d' Argiimens  imitilcs. 
Par  des  tours  ambigus,  par  des  raifons  inuiileSf 
Voidant  tout  dlvlfer  jufques  a  fin/mi, 
II  fepare  avec  art  ce  qui  doit  etre  uni. 
Vol.  VI.  N  Now, 


50  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    ON 

Now,  tiioiigh  this  Fault  in  the  Logic  of  the  Schools  be  univerfally 
owned  nnd  condemned  by  all  out  of  them,  and  by  no  one  more 
than  by  Mr.  De  Cr'jupz  himfclf,  in  his  Books  of  Logic^  yet  in  pure 
Contradiaioti  to  Mr-Po/x-,  who,  as  he  thought,  h;vd  condemned  if, 
lie  could  r.ot  forbear  faying,  J  Poet  may  happen  to  -write  with  nm^e 
Elfgance  than  a  Schoolman,  and  yet  for  all  thai  not  be  able  to  exprefs 
bhnfelj ivith  more  Jupiefs  and  Prccifion  *. 

The  Poet  having  given  this  Account  of  the  Nature  of  Self-love  m 
genfrjl,  comes  now  to  anatomize  it,  in  a  Difcourfe  of  the  Passions, 
wiiich  he  aptly  names  tlie  Modes  of  Sef-love;  the  Objea  of  a?l 
thefe,  he  fliews  [from  1.  82  to  91]  is  Good-,  and  when  under  the 
Guidance  of  Reafon,  real  Giod;  either  of  our  own,  or  of  another; 
for  fome  Goods  not  being  capable  of  Divifion  or  Communication, 
and  Rcafn,  at  the  fame  time,  diredling  us  to  provide  for  ourfelves, 
we  therefore,  in  purfuit  of  thefe  Objefts,  fometlmes  arm  at  our  own 
Good,  fometimes  at  the  Good  of  others  ;  when  fairly  aiming  at 
our  own,  the  Pajfion  is  called  Prudence,  when  at  another's,  Virtue. 

Hence  (as  he  fhews  from  1.  90  to  95)  appears  the  Folly  of  the 
Stoics,  vvho  would  eradicate  the  Pafiions,  Things  fo  necefihry  both 
to  the  Good  of  the  Individual,  and  of  the  Kind.  Which  prep€-fl:e- 
rou5  Method  of  promoting  Virtue,  he  therefore  very  reafonably  re- 
proves. But  as  it  was  from  Obfervatioii  of  the  Evils  occafioned 
by  the  Pafiions,  that  the  Stoics  thus  extravagantly  projected  their 
Extirpation,  the  Poet  recurs  [from  1.  94.  to  101]  to  his  grand  Prin- 
ciple, fo  often  before,  and  to  fo  good  Purpofe,  infifted  on,  that 
—  partial  III  is  miiverfal  Good : 

and  (hews,  that,  though  the  Tempeft  of  the  Pafiions,  like  that  of 
the  Air,  may  tear  and  ravage  fome  few  Parts  of  Nature  in  Its  Paf- 
fage,  yet  the  falutary  Agitation  produced  by  it  preferves  the  whole 
In  Life  and  Vigour.  This  is  his  frjl  Argument  agalnfi:  the  Stoics, 
which  he  illuftrates  by  a  very  beautiful  Similitude,  on  a  Hint  taken 
from  Scripture  Story  f  : 

*  Commentaire,  p.  152.  .|.   ,  Kings  xix.   11,   12. 

Nor 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  c;i 

Nor  God  alone  in  the  Jii//  Calm  we  find, 

He  mounts  the  Storm,  and  walks  upon  the  Wind. 

But  the  Tranflator,    not  taking    this  Allufion,    has  turn'd  it 
thus : 

Dieu  lui-mome,  Dieu  fort  ^c  fon  profond  repos. 

And  fo  has  made  an  Epicurean  God  of  the  Governor  of  the  Univerfe, 
of  whom  Scripture  afforded  Mr.  Fope  this  grand  and  fubllme  Idea. 
Mr.  De  Crou/az  does  not  fpare  this  Expreffion  of  God^s  coming  out 
of  his  profou7id  Repofe. — //  is  (iliys  he)  excejjively  poetical,  and  pre~ 
Jents  us  "with  Ideas  which  we  ought  not  to  dwell  upon.  But  when  he 
goes  on  —  ft  here  is  nothing  in  God''s  diredling  the  Storm  which  can 
authorife  the  PaJJions  that  dijlurb  our  Uappinefs  *),  he  talks  very  im- 
pertinently. Mr.  Pope  is  not  here  arguing  from  Analogy,  that  as 
God  raifes  and  heightens  the  Storm,  fo  fhould  we  raife  and  heigliten 
the  PaJJions.  The  Words  are  only  a  fimple  Affirmation  in  the 
poetic  Drefs  of  a  Similitude,  to  this  Purpofe. — "  Good  is  not  only 
"  produced  by  the  Subdual  of  the  Paffions,  but  by  the  turbulent 
*'  Exercife  of  them  :" 

Nor  God  alone  in  the  Jlill  Calm  we  find, 

He  mounts  the  Storm,  and  walks  upon  the  Wind, 

A  Truth  conveyed  under  the  moll  fubllme  Imagery  that  Poetry 
could  conceive  or  paint.  For  he  is  here  only  fhewing  the  provi- 
dential EfFe£ts  of  the  Paffions,  and  how,  by  God's  gracious  Difpo- 
fition,  they  are  turned  away  from  their  natural  Biafs,  to  promote 
the  Happinefs  of  Mankind.  As  to  the  Method  in  which  they  arc 
to  be  treated  by  Mcfn,  m  whom  they  are  found,  all  that  he  con- 
tends for,  in  favour  of  tliem,  is  only  this,  that  they  ffiould  not  be 
quite  rooted  up  and  deftroyed,  as  the  Stoics,  and  their  Followers  in 
all  Religions,  foolifhly  attempted.  For  the  reft,  he  conftantly  re- 
peats this  Advice  : 

The  Adion  of  the  Stronger  to  fufpend, 

Reason  flill  ufe,  to  Reason  flill  attend, 

*  Commentaire,  p.  15S. 

N  2  Uh 


^  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  V    O  N 

Kis  /fcot.-i  Argument  againft  the  S/oks  [from  1.  lOO  to  113]  is^ 
that  I\i//io'iS  go  to  the  Compolitioii  of  a  moral  Chara^er,  juft  as- 
FJement^try  Particles  go  to  the  Coinpofition  of  an  organized  Body  : 
Therefore,  for  Man  to  go  about  to  dcftroy  what  compofes  his  very 
Being,  is  the  Height  of  Extravagance :  It  is  true,  he  telJs  us  that- 
ihcfc  PiiJJioHs  which  in  their  natural  State,  like  Elements,  are  in 
perpetual  Jar,  muft  be  tempered,  foftencd,  and  united,  in  order  to 
perftifl  the  Work  of  the  great  plaflic  Artijl;  who,  in  this  Office, 
employs  human  Reafon :  Whofe  Bufinefs  it  is  to  follow  the  Road 
of  Naturey  and  to  obferve  \\-\c  DlSlates  of  the  Deity.  Follow  her 
and  God.  The  \J(e  and  Importance  of  this  Precept  is  evident  :  For 
in  doing  the  f'fl,  (he  will  difcover  the  Abfurdity  of  attempting  to 
eradicate  the  Paflions  ;  in  doing  the  fecond,  fhe  will  learn  how  to 
make  them  fubfcrvient  to  the  Intereflof  Virtue  : 

Suffice  that  Reafon  keep  to  Katurt's  Road, 
Subje<5l,  compound  them,  follow  her  and  God. 
Love,  Hope,  and  Joy,  fair  Pleafure's  fmiling  Train, 
Hate,  Fear,  and  Grief,  the  Family  of  Pain, 
Thefe  mixt  with  Art,  and  to  due  Bounds  confin'd,^ 
Make  and  maintain  the  Balance  of  the  Mind. 

His  third  Argument  agalnft  the  Stoics  [from  1.  112  to  n'?]  is-,, 
that  the  Paffions  occafion  in  us  a  perpetual  Excitement  to  the  Purfuit 
of  Happinefs ;  which  without  thefe  powerful  Inciters  we  fhould 
ncglea,  in  an  infenfible  Indolence.  Now  Happinefs  is  the  End  of 
our  Creation  ;  and  this  Excitement  the  Means  of  Happinefs :  There- 
fore thefe  Movers,  the  Pajions,  are  the  Inllruments  of  God,  which 
he  lias  put  into  the  Hands  of  Reafon,  to  work  withal : 

Plcafures  are  ever  in  our  Hands  or  Eyes, 

And  when  in  Aft  they  ceafe,  in  Profpedl  rife  ; 

Prefcnt  to  grafp,  and  future  ftill  to  find, 

The  whole  Employ  of  Body  and  of  Mind. 

The 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  ^^ 

The  Poet  then  proceeds  in  his  Siibje6i; ;  and  thiskfl:  Obfervatioi> 
leads  him  naturally  to  the  Difcuffion  of  his  next  Principle.  He 
{hews  then,  thai  though  all  the  Pqffiom  have  their  Turn  in  fvvay- 
iug  the  Determinations  of  the  Mind,  yet  every  Man  has  one  Mas- 
ter Passion  that  at  length  ftifles  or  abforbs  aW  the  reft.  The 
Fa£}  he  illuftrates  at  large,  in  thejirjl  Epijlle  of  his  fecond  Book. 
Here  [from  1.  ii6  to  132]  he  gives  us  the  Caiife  of  it:  ♦' Thofe 
"  Pleafures  or  Goods,  which  are  the  Objefls  of  the  Paffions,  af- 
"  fe6l  the  Mind,  by  flriking  on  the  Senfes ;  but,  as  through  the 
*'  Formation  of  the  Organs  of  the  human  Frame,  every  Man  has 
«'  Ibme  Senfe  flronger  and  more  acute  than  others,  the  Objed-,, 
'•  which  ftrikes  that  flronger  or  acuter  Senfe,  whatever  it  be,  will 
"  be  the  Objed  moft  defired  ;  and,  confequently,  the  Purfuit  of  that 
*'  will  be  the  ruling  PaJJicn  :" 

AH  fpread  their  Charms,  but  charm  not  all  alike. 

On  different  Senfes  different  Objefts  (hike  ; 

Hence  different  Paffions  more  or  lefs  inflame. 

As  ftrong,  or  weak,  the  Organs  of  the  Frame; 

And  hence  one  Alq/icr  Pq//ion  in  the  Bread, 

Like -(^^r(?«'i  Serpent,   fwal lows  all  the  reft. 

— that  the  Difference  of  Force  in  this  ruI/Mg  PaJJlon  fhall  at  fjifl> 
perhaps,  be  very  fmall  or  even  imperteptiblej  hwX  Nature,  PJabh, 
Imagination,  Wit,  nay  even  Reafon  itfelf,  (hall  aflift  its  Growth,  till 
it  hath  at  length  drawn  and  converted  every  other  into  iifclf. 

All  this  is  delivered  in  a  Strain  of  Poetry  fo  wonderfully  fublime,. 
as  fufpends  for  a  while  the  ru/ing  Paffmi  in  every  Reader,  and  in- 
groffes  his  whole  Admiration  : 

As  Man,  perhaps,  the  Moment  of  his  Breath 

Receives  the  lurking  Principle  of  Death  ; 

The  young  Difeafe,  that  muft  fubdue  at  length, 

Grows  with  his  Growth,  and  ftrengthens  with  his  Strcnrriir 

So,  caft  and  mingled  with  his  very  Frame, 

The  Mind's  Difeafe,  its  ruling  Passion  came  : 


^4  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

Eacli  vital  Humour  which  fliould  feed  the  whole, 

Soon  flows  to  this,  iu  Body  and  m  Soul  ; 

Whatever  warms  the  Heart,  or  fills  the  Head, 

As  the  Mind  opens,  atid  its  Fundions  fpread, 

Imagination  plies  her  dangerous  Art, 

And  pours  it  all  upon  the  peccant  Part. 

Nature  its  Mother,  Habit  is  its  Nurle  ; 

JFit,  Spirit,  Faculties,  but  make  it  worfe; 

Reij/on  itfilf  but  gives  its  Edge  and  Power ^ 

As  Heaven's  blefl:  Beam  turns  Vinegar  more  four*. 

This  naturally  leads  the  Poet  to  lament  the  Weahnefi  and  Infuff,- 
ciency  of  human  R'afon  [from  1.  138  to  151];  and  the  honed  Purpofe 
he  had  in  fo  doing  was,  plainly  to  intimate  tlie  Neceflity  of  a  more 
fublime  DlfpcnfiUion  to  Mankind  : 

We,  wretched  Subjeds,  though  to  lawful  Sway, 
In  this  weak  Queen  fome  Fav'rite  ftlll  obey. 
Ah  !  if  flie  lend  not  Arvis  as  well  as  Rules, 
What  can  flie  more  than  tell  us  we  are  Fools  ? 
Teach  us  to  mourn  our  Nature,  not  to  mend, 
A  (harp  Accufer,  but  a  helplefs  Friend  ! 

St.  Paul  himfelf  did  not  chufe  to  employ  other  Arguments, 
when  difpofed  to  give  us  the  higheft  Idea  of  the  Ufefulnefs  oi  Chrjf- 
iianity  -j--  But,  it  may  be,  the  Poet  finds  a  Remedy  in  tiatural 
Religion:  Far  from  it.     He  here  leaves  Reafon  unrelieved.     What 

*  Tl;c  Poet,  in  fomc  other  oih\iEji!/(Ie{,  gives  Examples  of  the  Dodiine  atid  Precepts 
here  delivered.  Thus,  in  that  of  the  Ufe  of  Riches,  he  has  ilhiftrated  this  Truth  in  the 
Charatler  of  Cotta : 

Old  Coita  fliam'd  his  Fortune  and  his  Birth, 

Vet  ixini  not  Cotta  void  of  Wit  or  Worth, 

What  though  (the  Ufe  of  barb'rous  Spits  forgot) 

His  Kitchen  vied  in  Coolnefs  with  his  Grot  ? 

If  Cotta  liv'd  on  Pulfe,  it  luas  no  more 

than  BramiiK,  Saints,  andSagej,   did  before, 
t  Sec  hit  Epiftle  to  the  Romans,  c.  vii, 

is 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  95 

is  this  then  but  an  Intimation  that  we  ought  to  feck  for  a  Cure  in 
that  Rehglon  which  only  dares  profcfs  to  give  it  ? 

But  Mr.  De  Croufdz  fays,  the  Poet,  in  this  Reprefentntion  of 
human  Rcnfon,  has  contradi6led  what  he  fald  of  it  in  tlie  80th  and 
98th  Lines  of  this  EpilHe.  And,  poflefled  with  this  Notion,  he 
goes  on,  in  his  declamatory  Way,  fo  unworthy  a  grave  Logician  : 
Does  Mr.  Pope  take  a  Pleafure  in  blowing  hot  and  cold,  in  giving  us 
Jucceffivdy  the  Sweet  and  Bitter,  to  reduce  us  to  fuch  a  State  that  we 
may  not  know  what  tojiick  to  ?  If  there  be  no  ill  Defgn  at  Bottom  in 
ihefe  Contradidlions,  but  that  they  only  Jpring  from  the  imprudent  Cufloniy 
eflablified  in  the  Schools,  of  talking  Pro  and  Con  *,  &c.  And  then 
tells  aa  idle  common-place  Story  of  Cardinal  Perron.  In  the  meaa 
time  it  happens  that  this  is  no  Contradi<5lion  at  all,  or,  if  it  be,  it 
is  that  very  Contradidipn  into  which  St.  Paul  likewife  fell,  wheu 
he  fo  continually  recommended  the  Ufe  of  Reafon,  and  yet  fo  ener- 
getically defcribed  its  Imbecillity  and  Impotence.  But  as  our 
Logician  fiiid  before,  on  a  like  Occafion,  this  might  be  edifying  in  a 
good  Alan,  yet  give  Scandal  in  an  ill  one. 

To  proceed,  as  it  appears  from  the  Account  here  given  of  tl^e 
ruling  Pajfion,  and  its  Caufe,  which  refults  frora  the  Strudure  of 
the  Organs,  that  it  is  the  Road  of  Nature,  the  Poet  fhews  [from 
I.  150  to  157]  that  this  Road  is  to  be  followetl'.  So  that  the  Office 
of  Reafon  is  not  to  dire(5l  us  what  PafTion  to  exercife,  but  to  afliil 
us  in  RECTIFYING,  and  keeping  within  due  Bounds,  that  w:hicli 
Nature  hath  fo  flrongly  imprefled  ;  for  that 

A  mightier  Power  the  ftrong  Direftion  fends, 
And  feveral  Men  impels  to  feveral  Ends. 

Here  Mr.  De  Croifaz  pours  out  the  full  Stream  of  his  Candour 
and  Politenefs,  in  his  Criticifm  on  thefe  Lines  : 
Yet  Nature's  Road  mufl:  ever  be  preferr'd  ; 
Reafon  is  here  no  Guide,  but  ftill  a  Guard  ;; 

*  Commentaire,  p.  i66, 

Tis 


/j6  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

'Tis  licr's  to  RI'.CTIFY,  not  overthrow. 
And  treat  this  l\>J}in  more  as  Friend  than  Foe. 
The  only  Rffugc  I  have  here  left  (fays  he)  is  tofufpofe  that  Mr.  Pope 
thought  //v  very  Mention  of  this  Notion  would  be  fufficient  to  expofe  the 
Alfurdity  and  Horror  of  it,  and  of  thofe  who  regulate  their  Condudi 
on  Inch  unrighteous  and  pocking  Ideas.  And  I  conceive  I  fhoidd  do 
M.  I'Abbc  do  Sep-Fontaines  much  In'jujlice,  if  I  did  not  believe  this 
was  his  intention  in  tranfaling  this  PaJJlige.  But,  to  have  a  more 
ferfeSi  Idea  of  th;  Ridicule  and  Horror  of  if,  let  us  put  the  fVords  into 
the  Mouth  of  a  Confeffor  *,  G"c.  And  fo  he  goes  gayly  on  t,  to  re- 
prtfcDt  a  ghoftly  Father  enconraging  his  Penitents  in  their  fevcral 
Vices  on  Mr.  P(5/f'j  pretended  Principles.  But  we  fhall  fpoil  his 
Mirth,  by  only  affuring  him,  that  the  Poet's  Precept  can  have  no 
other  Meaning  than  this,  *'  That  as  the  ruling  Pafjion  is  implanted 
"  bv  Nature,  it  is  Reafon's  Office  to  regulate,  dired,  and  reftrain, 
*'  but  not  to  overthrow  it.  To  regulate  the  Paffion  oi  Avarice,  for 
"  liiftance,  into  a  parfunonious  Difpenfation  of  the  public  Reve- 
"  nues ;  to  diredl:  the  Paffion  of  Love,  whole  Object  is  Worth  and 
*'  Beauty, 

"  To  the  firfl  Good,  firft  PcrfeSl,  and  firft  Fair  +,' 

•«  as  his  Mafter  P/rt/5  advifes ;  and  to  reftrain  Spleen,  to  a  Contempt 
*'  and  Hatred  of  Vice."  This  is  what  the  Poet  meant,  and  what 
every  unprejudiced  Man  could  not  but  fee  he  mull:  needs  mean,  by 
RECTIFYING  THE  MASTER  PASSION,  though  he  had  not 
confined  us  to  this  Senfe,  in  the  Reafon  he  gives  of  his  Precept,  in 
thcfe  Words  : 

A  mightier  Power  the  flrong  Direftion  fends. 

And  feveral  Men  impels  to  feveral  E?ids, 

For  what  Ends  are  they  which  God  impels  to,  but  the  Ends  of 
Virtue  ? 

*  Comraentaire,  p.  170.  ^  Id.   i-i^  i-j, 

X  To  nafiir—r'  iya9o». 

But 


Mr.    POPE'S     ESSAY    ON    MAN.  9; 

But  for  a  more  perfeSi  Idea  "(to  fpeak  in  his  own  free  Terms)  of  the 
Ridicule  of  our  Logician's  Comment,  let  us  attend  to  what  he  re- 
marks on  thefe  two  lafl  Lines.  TAefe  Words  (fays  he)  may  be  mi- 
derftood  in  more  than  one  Senfe,  ijohich  is  not  rare,  and  may  /jave  a 
more  or  lefs  rcjiraimd  Meaning.  They  are  fujceptible  of  a  Se7ije  extra- 
vagant  and  injurious  to  Providefjce,  and  they  will  admit  of  a  reafoU' 
able  one,  and  veryivorthy  our  Attention  *.  Here,  we  fee,  he  doubts 
about  the  Meaning  of  the  Reafon  of  the  Precept ;  admits  it  may- 
have  a  good  one;  and  yet  condemns,  without  Mefitation,  an.d  in 
the  groflefl:  and  mofh  fhocking  Terms,  the  Precept  itfelf ;  whofe 
Cleaning  muft  yet,  according  to  all  rational  Rules,  even  thofe  of 
his  own  Logic,  if  it  have  any  fuch,  be  determined  by  the  Reafon 
of  it. 

But  to  return.  The  Poet  having  proved  that  the  ruling  PaJJion 
(fince  Nature  hath  given  it  us)  is  not  to  be  overthrown,  but  recti- 
fied, the  next  Inquiry  will  be  of  what  Ufe  the  ruling  Pajfion  is ;  for 
an  TJfe  it  muft  have,  if  Reafon  be  to  treat  it  thus  mildly  ?  This 
\3^e  he  fliews  us  [fron:i  1.  156  to  iS-]  is  twofold.  Natural  and 
Moral. 

1.  Its  natural  Ufe  is  to  conduct  Men  fleddily  to  one  certain  End, 
who  would  otherwife  be  eternally  flu£luating  between  the  equal 
Violence  of  various  and  difcordant  Paflions,  driving  them  up  and 
down  at  random : 

Like  varying  Winds,  by  other  Paflions  tofl:. 

This  drives  them  conftant  to  a  certain  Coafl: ; 
and  by  that  Means  enables  them  to  promote  the  Good  of  Society,  by 
making  each  a  Contributor  to  the  common  Stock. 

Let  Power  or  Knowledge,  Gold  or  Glory  pleafe, 

Or  (oft  more  ftrong  than  all)  theZ/O^oV  ofEafe  : 

Through  Life  'tis  foUow'd. — 

2.  Its  moral  Ufe  is  to  ingraft  our  rulifig  Virtue  upon  it  : 
Th'  eternal  Art,  educing  Good  from  111, 

Grafts  on  this  Paflion  our  bcfi  Prificiple  ; 
*  Commctitaire,  p.  174. 

Vol.  VI.  O  sud 


^3  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

and  by  that  Means  enables  us  to  promote  our  otvn  Good  by  turning, 
thcExctbiiancyot  the/«%  P.#o«  into  its  neighbouring  Hriue.: 

Sec  j^nger.  Zeal  and  Fortitude  fupply  ; 

Ev*n  .'Ivrice,  Prudence ;  Shih,  Philoi'ophy  : 

Nor  Virtue,  male  or  female,  can  we  name, 

But  what  will  grow  on  Pride,  or  grow  on  Shame. 
The  Wil'dom  of  the  divine  Artlft  is,  as  the  Feet  finely  obferves, 
very  illuftiious  in  this  Contrivance  :  For  the  Mind  and  Body  having 
now  one  common  Intcreft,  the  ElToi-.t3  of  Virtue  will  have  their. 
Force  infinitely  augmented : 

'Tls  thus  the  Mercury  of  Man  is  fixt. 

Strong  grows  the  Virtue  with  his  Nature  mixt ;. 

The  Urofs  cements  what  elfe  were  too  refin'd,. 

And  in  one  bitereji  Body  acls  itith  Mind. 

But  left  it  (hould  be  objefted  that  this  Account  favours  the  Doc- 
trine of  Necejfity,  and  would  infinuate  that  Men  are  only  aSled  upon 
in  the  Produftion  of  Good  out  of  Evil ;  the  Poet  teacheth  [from 
1.  1 86  to  19-;]  that  Man  is  a  y>f^  ^^i-w/,  and  hath  it  in  his  oivn 
Power  to  turn  the  natural  Paffions  Into  Virtues  or  into  Vices^  pro- 
perly fo  called  : 

Reafon  the  Biafs  turns  from  Good  to  ill, 

And  Nero  reigns  a  'Tiius,  If  he  will. 

Secondly,  If  it  flio\ild  be  objedted,  that  though  the  Poet  doth  in- 
deed tell  us  fome  Adlions  are  beneficial  and  fome  hurtful,  yet  he 
could  not  call  thofe  Virtuous,  nor  thefe  Vicious,  becaufe,  as  he  has 
dcfcrlbed  Things,  the  Motive  appears  to '  be  only  Gratijication  of 
fme  Tojfion  ;  give  me  leave  to  anfwer  for  him,  that  this  would  be 
miftaklng  the  Argument,  which  in  thlsEpiftle  [to  1.  239.]  confiders 
the  Paffions  only  ivith  regard  to  Society,  that  is,  with  regard  to  their 
Effc^s  rather  than  their  Motives. ^Th^it  however  it  is  his  Defiga 
to  teach  that  Aftions  are  properly  virtuous  and  vicious  ;  and  though 

it 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  97 

it  be  difficult  to  diftinguifh  genuine  Virtue  fnom  Jpun'ous,  they  hav- 
ing both  the  fame  Appearance^  and  both  the  fame  public  Fffe^s ;  yet 
they  may  be  difembarrafled.  If  it  be  afked,  by  what  Means  ?  He 
replies  [from  1.  192  to  195]  by  Confcience^  which  is  fufficient  to  the 
Purpofe;  for  'tis  only  a  Man's  own  Concern,  to  know  whether 
his  Virtue  be  pure  and  folid  ;  for  what  is  that  to  otherSy  while  the 
Effecfl:  of  this  Virtue,  whether  real  or  unfubftantial,  is,  as  to  tloem^ 
tile  fame  ? 

This  Light  and  Darknefs,   in  our  Chaos  join'd. 
What  (hall  divide  ?      r/je  God  within  the  Mind. 

A  Platonic  Phrafe  for  Conscience  ;  and  here  employed  with 
great  Judgment  and  Propriety.  For  Confcience  either  fignifies,  fpe- 
culatively,  the  Judgment  we  pafs  of  Tilings  upon  whatever  Princi- 
ples we  chance  to -have  ;  and  tiieii  it  is  only  Opinion,  a  very 
unable  Judge  and  Divider:  Or  elfe,  it  fignifies,  praSlically,  the 
Application  of  the  eternal  Rule  of  Right  (received  by  us  as  the  Lazv 
of  God)  to  the  Regulation  of  our  A£lions;  and  tlien  it  is  properly 
Conscience,  Tfje  God  (or  the  Law  of  God)  ivilhin  the  Mind,  of 
Power  to  divide  the  Light  from  the  Darknefs  in  this  Chaos  of  the 
Paffions. 

But  f^ill  it  will  be  faid,  why  all  this  Difficulty  to  dlftinguifh 
true  Virtue  from  falfe  ?  The  Poet  ftiews  W/^jy  [from  1.  194  to  201] 
"  That  though  indeed  Vice  and  Virtue  fo  invade  each  other's 
*'  Bounds,  that  fometimes  we  can  fcarce  tell  where  one  ends  and 
**  the  other  begins,  yet  great  Purpofes  are  ferv'd  thereby,  no  lefs 
*'  than  the  perfecting  the  Conftitutioa  of  the  Whole;  as  Lights 
«*  and  Shades,  which  run  into  one  another  in  a  well-wrought 
<'  Pifture,  make  the  Harmony  and  Spirit  of  tlie  Compofition." 
But  on  this  Account  to  fay  there  is  neither  Vice  nor  Virtue,  the 
Poet  (hews  [from  1.  200  to  207]  would  be  juft  as  wife  as  to  fay 
there  is  neither  black  nor  ichite  ;  becaufe  tlie  Sliade  of  that^  and 
the  Light  of  this,  often  run  into  one  another  : 

O  2  A(k 


lOo  A     COMMENTARY     ON 

Allv.  your  oxvn  HeMt,  and  nothing  is  lb  plain  ; 
'1  is  to  mill.ikc  them  colls  the  'lime  and  Pain. 

This  Is  an  Error  o( Speculation,  which  leads  Men  fo  fooliflily  to 
conclude,  that  there  is  neither  Vice  nor  Virtue. 

2.  There  is  another  of  Pra^.'ce,  which  hath  more  common  and 
fatal  Ertl-tfls ;  and  is  next  confidcred  [from  1.  206  to  211  :J  It  is 
this,  That  though,  at  the  firft  Afpedl,  Vice  be  fo  horrible  as  to  af- 
fright all  Beholders,  yet,  when  by  Habit  we  are  once  grown  fa- 
miliar with  her,  we  llrft  fufler,  and  in  time  begin  to  lole  the  Me- 
mory of  her  Nature  : 

Vice  is  a  Monfler  of  fo  frightful  Mien, 
As,  to  be  hated,  needs  but  to  be  feen  ; 
Yet  feen  too  oft,  familiar  with  her  Face, 
W'c  firft  endure,  then  pity,  tlien  embrace. 

Wiiich  neccfl;\rily  implies  an  equal  Ignorance  in  the  Nature  of 
Virtue.  Hence  Men  conclude,  that  there  is  neitlier  one  nor  the 
other. 

But  it  is  not  only  tliat  Extreme  of  Vice  next  to  Virtue,  which  be- 
trays us  into  thefe  Miftakes :  We  are  deceived  too,  as  he  fhews 
us  [from  1.  210  to  221],  by  our  Obfervations  about  the  other 
Extreme. 

But  where  th'  Extreme  of  Vice  was  ne'er  agreed  : 
Afk  Where's  the  North?  at  Tork  'tis  on  the  Tweed; 
In  Scotland,  at  the  Orcades  ;  and  there 
At  Greenland,  Zenibia,  or  the  Lord  Icnows  where. 

For,  from  the  Extreme  of  Vice's  being  unfettled,  and  perpetually 
Ihifting,  Men  conclude,  that  ^/c^ //^//- is  only  nomlnah 

3.  There  is  yet  a  third  Caufc  of  this  Error  of  no  Vice  no  Vir- 
iue,  compofed  of  the  other  two,  /.  e.  ^zxtly  fpcculative,  and  partly 
praclicat:  And  this  alfo  the  Poet  confiders  [from  1.  220  to  229] 
iliewing  it  arifcth  from  the  Imperjemon  of  the  bcji  Charaders,  and 
the  IneriuaUty  oiall;  whence  it  happens  that  no  Man  is  extremely 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  lor 

virtuous  or  vicious,  nor  extremely  conflant  in  Purfuit  of  either, 
Wjiy  it  fo  happens  the  Poet  afligns  an  admirable  Reafon  hi  this- 
Line : 

For,  Vice  or  Virtue,  self  direSls  it  fill. 

An  Adherence  or  Regard  to  what  is,  in  the  Senfe  of  the  World, 
a  Marl's  own  Interejl,  making  an  Extreme  in  either  impofTible.  Its 
EfFeift  in  keeping  a  good  Man  from  the  Extreme  of  Virtue  needs 
no  Explanation  :  And  in  an  ill  Man,  Self-interejl  flievving  him  the 
Neceflity  of  fome  kind  of  Reputation,  the  procuring  and  prefcrving 
//W  will  neceflarily  keep  him  from  the  Extreme  of  Vice. 

The  Mention  of  this  Principle  l\i-Mjelfdircdh  Vice  and  Virtue  y.%\\^ 
its  Confequence,  which  is,  that 

Each  Individual  feeks  a  feveral  Goal, 
leads  the  Author  to  obferve 

That  Heaven's  great  View  is  one,  and  that  the  Whole  r 

and  this  brings  him  naturally  round  again  to  his  main  Subjeifh, 
namely,  God's  producing  Good  out  of  III,  which  he  profecutes  in  his- 
inimitable  Manner  [from  ].  228  to  239]. 

That  counterworks  each  Folly  and  Caprice  ; 
That  difappoints  th'  EtFeft-  of  ev'ry  Vice  : 
That  happy  Frailties  to  all  Ranks  apply 'd, 
Shame  to  the  Virgin,  to  the  Matron  Pride, 
Fear  to  the  Statefman,  Rafhnefs  to  the  Chiefj 
To  Kings  Prefumption,  and  to  Crowds  Belief. 

I.  Hitherto  the  Poet  hath  been  employed  in  difcourfing  of  the 
Vfe  of  the  Pc'Jfons,  with  regard  to  Society  at  large,  and  in  freeing 
his  Do6lrine  from  Objetiions.  This  is  the  fir  ft  general  Divifion  of 
the  Subjea  of  this   Epijile. 

II.  He  comes  to  fhew  [from  1.  238  to  251]  the  \J[q  of  thefe 
Paffions,  "with  regard  to  the  more  confined  Circle  of  our  Friends,  Re- 
Litions,  and  Acquaintance.  And  this  is  the  &w«^  general  Divifion  :. 

IVants^ 


,Qj  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  TARY    O  N 

irants,  Frailties,  P^ijions  clofer  flill  ally 

The  common  Intercft,  or  endear  the  Tie : 

To  thefe  we  owe  true  Friendfhlp,  Love  fincere, 

Each  homc-fclt  Joy  that  Life  inherits  here  : 

Yet  from  the  fame  we  learn  in  its  Decline 

Thole  Joys,  thole  Loves,  thofe  Interefts  to  refign. 

As  tliefe  Lines  fecm  not  to  have  been  underftood  by  the  Tran- 
Jlator,  and  are  fcandaloufly  mifreprefented  by  the  Commentator, 
who  would  infinuate  them  to  be  a  kind  of  Approbation  of  Suicide*, 
1  (hall  here  give  the  Reader  their  plain  and  obvious  Meaning. 

"  To  thefe  P>ailties  (fays  he)  we  owe  all  the  Endearments  of  prl- 
<*  vate  Life  ;  yet,  when  we  come  to  that  Age,  which  generally 
"  difpofes  Men  to  think  more  ferioufly  of  the  true  Value  of  Thing:^., 
■*'  and,  confequently,  of  their  Provifion  for  a  future  State,  the 
*'  Confuleration  that  the  Grounds  of  thofe  Joys,  Loves  and  Friend- 
*'' pips,  are  Wants,  Frailties  and  Pajfions,  proves  the  beft  Expc- 
«'  dient  to  wean  us  from  the  World;  a  Difengagement  fo  friendly 
■"  to  that  Provilion  we  -are  now  making  for  another."  The  Obfer- 
vation  is  new,  and  would  in  any  Place  be  extremely  beautiful,  but 
has  here  an  infinite  Grace  and  Propriety,  as  it  fo  well  confirms,  by 
^n  Inftance  of  great  Moment,  the  Poet's  general  Thefis,  That  God 
makes  III,  at  every  Step,  produdiive  of  Good. 

III.  The  Poet  having  thus  (hewn  the  Ufe  of  the  Paffions  In 
Society  and  in  domefic  Life,  he  comes  in  the  lafi  Place  [from  1. 
250  to  the  End]  to  (hew  their  Ufe  to  the  Individual,  even  in  their 
Iitufo':s  ;  the  imaginary  Happinefs  they  prefent  helping  to  make  the 
real  Mifcries  of  Life  lefs  infuppoitable.  And  this  is  his  third  ge- 
neral Divifion  : 

— Opinion  gilds  with  varying  Rays 
Thofe  painted  Clouds  that  beautify  our  Days  : 
Each  Want  of  Happinefs  by  Hope  fupply'd, 
Aiul  each  Vacuity  of  Senfe  by  Pride. 

*  Commentaire,  p.  io6. 

Thefe 


KfR.     POP  E;S    essay    on    man.         103 

Thefe  build  as  fafl:  as  Knowledge  can  deftroy  : 
111  Folly's  Cup  ftill  laughs  the  Bubble  Joy; 
One  Profpeft  loll:,  another  Aill  we  gain  ; 
And  not  a  Vanity  is  given  in  vain. 

Which  mufl:  needs  vaftly  raife  our  Idea  of  God's  Goodnefs,  wha 
hath  not  only  provided  more  than  a  Counter-balance  of  real  Hap- 
pinefs  to  human  Miferies,  but  hath  even,  in  his  infinite  Compaf- ' 
fion,  beflowed  on  thofe,  who  were  fo  foolifli  as  not  to  have  made 
this  Provifion,  an  imagmary  Happinefs  ;  that  they  may  not  be  quile 
over- borne  with  the  Load'  of  human  Miferies.  This  is  the  Poet's 
great  and  noble  Thought,  as  ftrong  and  folid  as  it  is  new  and  in-^ 
genious.  But  fo  ftrangely  perverfe  is  his  Commentator,  that  he 
will  fuppofe  him  to  mean  any  thing  rather  than  what  the  obvious 
Drift  of  his  Argument^  requires  ;  yet,  to  fay  Truth,  cares  not  much 
in  what  Senfe  you  take  it,  fo  you  will  believe  him  that  Mr.  Pope's 
general  Defign  was  to  reprefent  human  Life  as  one  grand  lllujlon 
fatally  conduSfed.  But  if  the  Rules  of  Logic  ferve  for  any  other 
Purpofe  than  to  countenance  the  Paflions  and  Prejudices  of  fucli. 
Writers,  it  maybe  demonftrated,  that  what  the  Poet  here  teaches 
is  only  tliis,  "  That  thefe  lUufions  are  the  Follies  of  Men,  which 
"  they 'ti-'///K//y  fall  into,  and  through  their  own  Fault',  thereby 
"  depriving  themfelves  of  much  Happinefs,  and  expofmg  them- 
'«  felves  to  equal  Mifery  :  But  that  flill  God  (according  to  his 
"  Univerfal  way  of  Working)  gracioufly  turns  thefe  Follies  fo  far 
"  to  the  Advantage  of  his  miferable  Creatures,  as  to  be  the  prefent 
"Solace  and  Support  of  their  Diflrefies," 

— Tho'  Man's  a  Fool,  yet  God  is  wife. 


LETTER 


,oi  A    COMMENTARY    ON 


LETTER       IIL 


WE  arc  now  got  to  the  T/^irri  EpijHe  of  the  EJhy  on  Man, 
Mr.  Pope,  in  explaining  the  Origin,  \]{e,  and  End  of  the 
Paflions,  in  the  yi'coW  Epiflle,  having  fhewn  that  Man  has  fociai 
as  well  as y^^j  Paflions ;  that  Do6lrine  naturally. introduceth  the 
Third,  which  treats  of  Man  as  a  social  Animal ;  and  connefts  it 
with  the  Second,  which  confidered  him  as  an  Individual.  And 
as  the  Conclufion  from  the  Subject  of  the  Firjl  Epiftle  made  the 
Introdutlion  to  the  Second,  fo  here  again,  the  Conclufion  of  the 
Second, 

Ev'n  mean  Self-love  becomes,  by  Force  divine, 
The  Scale  to  meafure  others  Wants  by  thine, 

makes  the  Introdu6lion  to  the  Third: 

Here  then  we  reft  ;  the  Univerfal  Caufe 
Ads  to  one  End,  but  ads  by  various  Laws. 

The  Reafon  of  Variety  in  thofe  Laws,  all  which  tend  to  one  and 
the  fame  End,  the  Good  of  the  Whole,  generally,  is,  becaufe  the 
Good  of  the  Individual  is  likewife  to  be  provided  for ;  both  which 
together  make  up  the  Good  of  the  Whole  univerfally.  And  this 
is  the  Caufe,  as  the  Poet  fays  clfewhere,  that 

Each  Individual  feeks  a  feveral  Go^l.     Ep.  li.  1.  227, 

But 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON     xMAN.  105 

But  to  prevent  their   reAing  ihere,  God  has   made  each  need   the 
Ainflance  of  another  :  and  fo, 

On  mutual  Wants,  built  mutual  Happinefs.     Ep.  Hi.  ].  112. 

It  was  ncceflary  to  expLiin  thcfc  two  firfl   Lines,  the  better  to 
fee  the  Pertinency  and  Force  of  what  follows  [fron:i  1.  2  to  7]  where 
the  Poet  warns  fuch  to  take  Notice  of  this  Truth,  whofe  circum- 
ftances  placing  them  in  an  imaginary  Station  of  Independence,  and 
a  real  one  of  Infenfibility  to  mutual  Wants  (from  whence  general 
Happinefs  refults)    make   them   but  too  apt  to  overlook   the   true 
Syftem  of  Things;  fuch  as  thofe  \nfull  Health  and  Opulence.    This 
Caution  was  neceflary  with  regard  to  Society  ;  but  ftill  more  necef- 
fary  with  regard  to  Religion  :  '1  herefore  he  efpecially  recommends 
the  Memory  of  it  both  to  Clergy  and  Laity,  when  they  preach  or 
pray ;   becaufe  the  Preacher  who  does  not   confider  the  Firji  Caufe 
under  this  View,  as  a  Being  confulting  the  Good  of  the  Whole, 
muft  needs  give  a  very  lanvorthy  Idea  of  him  :  And  the   Suppli- 
cant, who  prays   as  one  not  related  to  a  Whole^  or-  as   difregarding 
the   Happinefs   of  it,  w  ill   not  only  pray   in   vain,  but  offend  his 
Maker,  by  an  impious  Attempt  to  counterwork  his  Difpenfation  : 
in  all  the  Madnefs  of  fuperfluous  Health, 
The  Trim  of  Prid^,  the  Impudence  of  Wealthy 
Let  this  great  Truth  be  prefent  Night  and  Day, 
But  moft  be  prefent,  if  we  preach  or  pray. 

Tlic  Tranflator,  not  feeing  into  the  admirable  Purpofes  of  this 
Caution,  hath  quite  dropt  the  moft  material  Circumftances  con- 
tained in  the  hiJIUxue  ;  and,  wliat  is  worfe,  for  the  fake  of  a  fooliOi 
Antithefis,  hath  deftroyed  the  whole  Propriety  of  the  Thought,  in 
thejirji  and  feco?id,  and  fo,  between  both,  hath  left  his  Author 
neither  Senfe  nor  Syflem, 

Dans  le  Scin  du  bonheur,  oh  de  P Ad-verfile. 

Now,  of  all  Men,  thofe  in  Adverjity  have  the  leafc  need  of  this 

Cautio*!!,  as  being  the  leaft  apt  to  forget  that  God  confulti  the  Good  of 

Vol.  VI.  P  the 


,o6  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

the  //'^cv,  and  frcvJu'ts  for  it,  hy  procuring  mutual  Jiapplnefs  by 
means  of  mutual  irants  :  Becaufe  luch  as  yet  retain  the  Smart  of 
aiir  frcHi  Calamity  are  moi\  companionate  to  others  labouring  un- 
der the  lame  Misfortunes,  and  motl  prompt  and  ready  to  relieve 
them. 

The  Poet  then  introduccth  his  Syflem  of  human  Sociability  [h  7, 
8]  by  flicwing  it  to  be  the  Di^flate  of  tlie  Creator,  and  that  AliWt 
mthis,  did  but  follow  the  Example  oi' general  Nature,  which  is 
united  in  one  clofc  S\Jlcm  cf  Benevolence : 

Look  round  our  World  ;  behold  the  Chain  of  Love 

Combining  all  below,  and  all  above. 

This  he  proves, /^y?  [from  1.  8  to  13]  (on  the  noble  Theory 
of  AttraSlion)  from  the  Oeconomy  of  the  material  World-,  where 
there  is  a  general  Confpiracy  in  all  the  Particles  of  Matter  to 
work  for  one  End  ;  the  Ule,  Beauty,  and  Harmony  of  the  whole 
Mais. 

L 

See  plaflic  Nature  working  to  this  End, 

The  fmgle  Atoms  each  to  other  tend, 

Attrad,  attraded  to,  the  next  in  Place 

Fornid  and  impeWd  it's  Neighbour  to  embrace. 

Formal  and  impelled,  fays  he.  Thefe  are  not  Words  of  a  loofe 
Tindiainguiflied  Meaning,  thrown  in  to  fill  up  the  Verfe.  This 
is  not  our  Author's  Way,  they  are  full  of  Senfe ;  and  of  the  mofl: 
philofophical  Precifion.  For  to  make  Matter  fo  cohere  as  to  fit  it 
/or  the  Ufes  intended  by  its  Creator,  a  proper  Configuration  of  its 
infenhble  Parts  is  as  neceflhry  as  that  Quality  fo  equally  and  uni- 
verfally  conferred  upon  it,  called  AltraSlion. 

But  here  again  the  TranOator,  miliaking  this  Defcription  of  the 
Preservation  of  the  material  Uni verfe  by  the  Principle  of  Attradion, 
for  a  Defcription  of  its  Creation,  has  quite  deflroyed  the  Poet's 
fine  analogical    Argument,    by  which  he  proves,    from  the  Cir- 

cumftance 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  107 

cumftance  of  mutual  Attradion  in  Matter,  that  Man,  while  he 
feeks  Society,  and  thereby  promotes  the  Good  of  his  Species,  co- 
operates with  God's  general  Difpenjation.  For  the  Circumftauce  of 
a  Creation  proves  nothing  but  a  Creator: 

Voi  du  Sein  du  Chaos  eclater  la  lumiere, 

Chaque  Atome  ebranle  courir  pour  s'cmbraffer,  ^c. 

The  Poet's  ftcond  Argument  [from  1.  12  to  27]  is  taken  from  the 
vegetable  and  animal  World ;  whofe  Beings  ferve  mutually  for  the 
Production,  Support,  and  Suftentation  of  each  other. 

II. 
See  Matter  next,  with  various  Life  endued, 
Prefs  to  one  Centre  Hill,  tke  general  Good  ; 
See  dying  Vegetables  Life  fuftain. 
See  Life  diflblving  vegetate  again  : 
All  Forms  that  perilh  other  Forms  fupply. 
By  Turns  they  catch  the  vital  Breath,  and  die  ; 
Like  Bubbles  to  the  Sea  of  Matter  born, 
They  rife,  they  break,  and  to  that  Sea  return,  £?<:. 

One  would  wonder  what  fliould  have  induced  Mr.  V Abbcto  tranflate 
the  two  laft  Lines,  thus : 

Sort  du  ncant y  rentre,  et  reparoit  au  jour. 

Comes  out  of  Nothing,  and  enters  back  again  into  Nothing. 

But  he  is  generally  as  confiftently  wrong  as  his  Author  is  right. 
For  having,  as  we  obferved,  miftaken  the  Poet's  Account  of  the 
Prefervation  of  the  material  World,  for  the  Creation  of  it ;  he  makes 
the  very  fame  Miilake  with  regard  to  the  vegetable  and  animal ;  and 
fo  comes  in  here  (indeed  rather  of  the  latefl)  with  his  Production 
of  Things  out  of  nothing. 

I  fhould  not  have  taken  notice  of  this  Miflake  but  for  Mr.  De 
Croifaz's  ready  Remark.  "  Mr.  Pope,  fays  he,  defcends  even  to 
*'  the  moft  vulgar  Prejudices ;  when  he  tells  us,  that  each  Being 

P  2  "  comes 


,oS  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  U 

«•  coui  out  r.f  KubJtip;,  the  common  People  think  that  tiiat  which 
•♦  ililappoars  is  annihilated.  The  Atoms,  the  Imalleil:  Particles,  the 
•'  R<x>rs  of  tcrrcrtrial  Botlies  lublift*,  c^r."  But  who  it  is  that  tle- 
fcen.ls  to  the  worll  vu/sar  Prsjudues,  the  Reader  will  fee  when  he 
l.i  told  th.it  Mr.  Dj  Crotifiz  knew  very  well  that  Mr.  Pope  faid  not 
one  \V»)rd  of  each  Being^'s  going  hack  into  Nothing ;  both  from  his 
not  finding  it  in  the  Profe  Tranflator,  and  i'vom  Refuel' s  Confeffiou 
in  his  Pret'.icc,  that  he  had  taken  great  Liberties  with  his  Ori- 
ginal. 

But  this  Part  of  tlie  Argument,  in  which  tiie  Poet  tells  us,  thcU 
God 

Connedls  each  Being,.  greateiT:  with  the  leafl: ; 
Made  Beaft  In  Aid  of  Man,  and  Man  of  Beaft  ;. 

yllljerv'dt  allftrving 

awaking  again  the  old  Pride  of  his  A.dvcrfarics,  who  cnnnot  bear 
that  i^ii7«  fhould  be- thought  to  he  fervi/ig  as  well  zs  firved ;  he 
takes  this  Occafion  again  to  humble  them  [from  1.  26  to  5.3]  by  the 
fame  kind  of  Argument  he  had  lb  fuccefsfully  employed  in  x\\tjirji 
Epill'Ie,  andwhich  our/Vy?  Letter  has  confidered  at  large. 

However,  his  Adverfarles,  loth  to  give  up  the  Quefllon,  will 
reafon  upon  the  Matter;  and  we  are  now  to  fuppofe  them  objeding 
againft  Providence  .in  this  Manner  — We  grant,  fay  they,,  that  iu 
the  irrational,  as  in  the  inanimate  Creation,  all  isferved,  and  all  Is 
ferving.  But,  with  regard  to  Man,  the  Cafe  Is  different ;  he  flands 
fnigle.  For  his  Reafon  hath  endowed  him  both  with  Power  and 
Addrefs,  fufficient  to  make  all  Thlngsj^rw  hiin ;  and  his  Self-lovcy 
of  which  you  have  fo  largely  provided  for  him,  will  dlfpofe  him, 
in  his  Turn,  to  ferve  none.  Therefore  your  Theory  is  imperfetSV. — 
"  Not  fo,  replies  the  Poet  [from  1.  52  to  83]  I  grant  you,  Man  in- 
"  deed  affeils  to  be  the  Wit  and  ^Tyrant  of  the  Whole ^  and  would  fain 
"  fhake  off 

— That  Chain  of  Love, 
Combining  all  below  and  all  above : 

*  Conimentaire,  p.  221, 

«'  But 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON     MA-N".  iccjr 

**"But  Nafurc,  even  by  the  very  Gift  of  Rc'ifcn,  checks  this  Ty- 
'■'■rant:  Vov  Reafon  endowing  Man  with  the  Ability  of  letting- 
•■'  together  the  Memory  of  the  pall,  and  Conjediure  about  the  Future  ; 
"  and  p;dt  Misfortunes  making  him  apprehenfive  of  more  to  come, 
"  this  difpofes  him  to  pity  and  reheve  others  in  a  Stole  of  Suffer- 
"  ing.  And  the  Paflion  growing  habitual,  naturally  extends  its 
"  Eiteds  to  all  that  have  a  Senfe  of  fufFering.  Now  as  Brutes  have 
"  neither  Man's  Reafon,  nor  his  Inordinate  Sef-love  to  draw  them 
"  from  the  Syftem  of  Benevolence,  ib  they  wanted  not,  and 
"  therefore  have  not,  this  human  Sympathy  of  another's  Mifery.  By- 
"  vviiich  Paffion  we  lee  thofe  Qualities,  in  Man,  balance  one  ano- 
"  ther,  and  lb  retain  him  in  that  general  Order,,  in  which  Provi- 
"  dence  has  placed  its  whole  Creation.  But  this  is  not  all ;  Man's. 
"  Interefr,  Amufement,  Vanity,  and  Luxury,  tic  him  Hill  cloicr 
"  to  the  Syftem  ef  Benevolence,  by  obliging  him  to  provide  for 
"  the  Support  of  other  Animals;  and  though  It  be,  for  the  mofb: 
•'  part,  only  to  devour  them  with  the  greateft  Gufl:,  yet  this  docs.- 
'•  not  abate  the  proper  Happinefs  of  the  Animals  fo  preferved,  to 
"  whom  Proviclcfice  has  not  given  the  ufkfs  Knciclecfge  of  their  Ena'. 
"From  all  which  it  appears,  that  the  Theory  is  yet  unitbrm,  and. 
*'  perfect. 

Grant  that  the  Powerful  Hill  the  Weak  contrcuU 
Be  Man  tiie  Wit  and  Tyrant  of  the  Whole  : 
Nature  that  Tyrant  checks  ;  he  only  knows 
And  helps  another  Creature's  Wants  and  Woes. 
Say,  will  the  Falcon,  Hooping  from  above, 
Smit  with  her  varying  Plumage,  fpare  the  Dove  ? 
Admires  the  Jay  the  Infedl's  gilded  WingSj 
Or  hears  the  Hawk,  when  Philomela  fings  ? 

Man  cares  for  all,  ^c.-. 

For  fomc  his  Interefi:  prompts  him  to  provide. 
For  more  his  Pleafure,  yet  for  more  his  Pride. 

Tiils 


iro  A    C  0  M  M  E  N  TA  R  Y    O  N 

'1  his  is  the  Force  of  this  fine  and  noble  Argument.  The  fenfe- 
KM's  .-Mul  fc.mdalous  Reflexions  of  Mr.  De  Croufaz  on  the  latter 
I'art  of  it,  I  have  refuted  in  my  former  Letter. 

But  even  to  this,  as  a  Caviller  would  fllll  object,  we  mufl:  fuppofe 
him  fo  to  do,  and  fay — Admit  you  have  fhewn  that  Nature  hath 
endowed  all  Anitnals,  whether  human  or  brutal,  with  fuch  Facul- 
ties as  admirably  fit  them  to  promote  the  general  Good:  Yet,  in 
its  Care  for  this,  hath  not  Nature  neglefted  to  provide  for  the 
private  Good  of  the  Individual  ?  We  have  Caufe  to  think  it  hath, 
and  we  fuppofe  that  it  was  on  this  exclufive  Confideration  that  it 
kept  back  from  Brutes  the  Gift  of  Reafon  (fo  neceffary  a  means 
of  private  happiiiefs),  becaufe  Reafon,  as  we  find  in  the  Inltance 
of  Man,  where  there  is  Occafion  for  all  the  complicated  Contri- 
vance  you  have  defcribed  above,  to  make  the  Effedls  of  his  Pajfwns 
countei-work  the  immediate  Powers  of  his  Reafon,  in  order  to  keep 
him  liibfervient  to  the  general  Syflem ;  Reafon,  vve  fay,  naturally 
tends  to  draw  Beings  into  ^private,  independent  Syftem. 

This  the  Poet  anfwers  by  fnewing  [from  1.  8  2  to  109]  that  the 
Happinefs  oi  animal  and  human  Life  is  widely  different.  Tlie  Hap- 
pinefs  of  human  Life  confifting  in  the  Improvement  of  the  Mind, 
can  be  procured  by  Rmfon  only  :  But  the  Happinefs  of  animal  Life 
confifting  in  the  Gratifications  of  Senfe,  is  beft  promoted  by  In- 
Jlin£t.  And,  with  regard  to  the  regtilar  and  confliant  Operation  of 
eacji,  in  that,  Inftindl  hath  plainly  the  Advantage  :  For  here  God 
Jireds  immediately  ;  there,  only  mediately,  through  Man  : 

Reafon,  however  able,  cool  at  beft. 

Cares  not  for  Service,  or  but  ferves  when  preft ; 

Stays  till  we  call,  ajid  then  not  often  near  ; 

But  honeft  Inftind  comes  a  Volunteer. 

And  Reafon  raife  o'er  Inftlna  as  you  can. 

In  this  'tis  God  direSls,  in  that  'tis  Man. 

The  Commentator  (who  I  wUl,  in  Charity,  fuppofe  faw  nothing 
of  this  fine  and  fober  Reafoning,  nor  was  apprehenfive  of  the  Ob- 
jeaion  which  occafioned   it,  though  that  Objedion  arlfesdiredly 

from 


RIn.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON    MAN.         ,ir 

from  the  Subjeft)  accufcth  the  Poet  of  defignlng  to  reprcfent 
Brutes  as  perjc£l  as  Man,  who  is  (fays  he)  of  a  Nature  Jufceptible 
of  Religion  *,  But  if  our  Commentator  could  not  lee  the  Chaui  of 
Reafonhig,  •  he  might  yet,  methinks,  have  attended  to  this  plain 
Denunciation  of  the  Poet,  which  introduccth  the  Diicourle  that 
gives  him  fo  much  Offence  : 

Whether  with  Reafon  or  with  Inll:in£l  bleil:, 

Know  all  enjoy  the  Power,  labicb  Jiiits  them  beji  : 

To  Blifs  alike  by  that  Direftion  tend, 

And  find  the  Means  proportion' d  to  the  End. 

Which  fliews  the  FerfeSiion  here  fpoken  of  not  to  be  a  Perfediou 
equalled  to  that  of  another  Being,  but  only  fuch  an  one  as  iz propor- 
tioned to  the  Being  itfelf,  of  whom  this  Perfedlon  is  predicated. 

The  Poet  now  comes  to  the  main  Subje£l  of  his  Epiftle,  tiie 
Proof  of  Man's  Sociability,  from  the  two  general  Societies  com- 
pofed  by  him  ;  the  natural,  fubjedl  to  paternal  Authority  ;  and 
the  CIVIL,  fubjeft  to  that  of  a  Magiftrate  :  Which  he  hath  had  the 
Addrefs  to  introduce,  fiom  what  had  preceded,  in  fo  eafy  and  natu- 
ral a  Manner,  as  fhews  him  to  have  the  Art  of  giving  all  the  Grace 
to  the  Drynefs  and  Severity  of  Method,  as  well  as  Wit  to  the 
Strength  and  Depth  of  Reafon.  For  the  philofophic  Nature  of  iiis 
Work  requiring  he  fhould  fliew  by  what  Means  thofe  Societies  were 
introduced,  this  affords  him  an  Opportunity  of  Aiding  gracefully 
and  eafily  from  iht  Preliminaries  into  the  main  Sub'jeSl  \  and  lo  of 
giving  his  Work  that  Perfedion  of  Method,  which  we  find  only  in 
the  Compofitions  of  great  Writers. 

For  having  juft  before,  though  to  a  different  Purpofe,  defer'. bed 
the  Power  of  beftial  Inftind  to  attain  tiie  Happinefs  of  the  Indi- 
vidual,  he  goes  on  in  fpeaking  of  Inftindl  as  it  is  ferviceable  both 
to  that,  and  to  the  Kind  [from  \.  io8  to  148]  to  illuftrate  the  Ori- 
ginal  of  Society.  He  {hews,  that  though,  as  he  had  before  ob- 
ferved,  God  had  founded  the  proper  Blifs  of  each  Creature  in  the 

*  Conimcntairc,  p.  ^29. 

NaturC' 


,  ,a  A-    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     ON 

Sntttrc  of  its  own  Being,  yet  thefc  not  being  independent  Indivi- 
duals, but  Parts  of  a  Whole,  God,  to  blefs  that  Whole,  built 
mutual  Happineis  on  mutual  Wants  :  Now  for  the  Supply  of  mu- 
tual Wants,  Creatures  muft  neceflhrily  come  together  ;  which  is 
the  firrt  Ground  of  Society  amongft  Men  : 

Whate'er  of  Life  all-quickening  ^ther  keeps. 

Or  breathes  through  Air,  or  ihoots  beneath  the  Deeps, 

Or  pourG  profufe  on  Earth;  oiie  Nature  feeds 

'i'he  vital  Flame,  and  fwells  the  genial  Seeds. 

Not  Man  alone,  but  all  tliat  roam  the  Wood, 

Or  wing  the  Sky,  or  roll  along  the  Flood, 

Each  loves  itfelf,  but  not  itfclf  alone, 

Each  Sex  defires  alike,  till  two  are  one. 

He  then  proceeds  to  that  Qz\\t(\  natural,  fubje^l  to  palernal  Axitho- 
rity,  and  arifuig  from  the  Union  of  the  two  Sexes ;  defciibes  tiie 
imperfe(fl  Image  of  it  in  Brutes;  then  explains  it  at  large  in  all  its 
Caufes  and  Elfcfls  :  And,  Ja.ft!y,  fliews,  that  as  in  Fact,  like 
mere  animal  Society,  it  is  founded  and  preferved  by  mutual  Wants, 
the  Supplial  of  which  caufes  mutual  Happinefs  ;  fo  is  it  likewife 
in  Right,  as  a  rational  Society,  by  Equity,  Gratitude,  and  the 
Obfcrvr.nce  of  the  Relation  of  Things  in  general; 

Reflexion,  Reafon,  flill  the  Ties  improve  ; 

At  once  extend  the  Intereft,  and  the  Love  : 

With  Choice  we  fix,  with  Sympathy  we  burn, 

Each  Virtue  in  each  Pafllon  takes  its  Turn ; 

And  ftill  new  Needs,  new  Helps,  new  Habits,  rife. 

That  graft  Benevolence  on  Charities. 

Mem' ry  and  Forecaft  juft  Returns  engage. 

That  pointed  back  to  Youth,  this  on  to  Age; 

While  Pleafure,  Gratitude,  and  Hope  combin'd. 

Still  fpread  the  Intereft,  and  preferv'd  the  Kind.] 

But  the  Atheift  and  Hobbiji,  againft  whom  Mr.  Pope  writes,  deny 
the  Principle  of  Right,  or  of  natural  Jujiicc,  before  the  Invention 

of 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    ]\I  A  N.         113 

o? civil  Compact,  which,  they  fay,  gave  Behig  to  it:  Ami  accor- 
dingly have  had  the  EfiVontery  publickly  to  declare,  that  a  State  of 
NcJtureivas  a  State  oflVar.  This  quite  lub verts  the  Poet's  natural 
Society:  Therefore,  z.ix.zx  \-{\%  Account  oi  that  State,  he  proceeds  to 
fupport  t\\&  Reality  of  It,  by  overthrowing  the  oppugnant  Princi- 
ple of  no  natural  Jujlice ;  which  he  does  [from  1.  147  to  170]  by 
{hewing,  in  a  fine  Defcription  of  the  State  of  Innocence,  as  repre- 
fented  in  Scripture,  that  a  State  of  Nature  was  fo  far  from  being 
wiihowX.  natural  JuJlicc,  that  it  was,  atfirft,  the  Reign  of  God,  where 
Right  and  Truth  univerfally  prevailed  : 

Nor  think,  in  Nature's  State  they  blindly  trod, 
The  State  of  Nature  was  the  Reign  of  God. 
Self-love,   and  foclal,   at  her  Birth  began. 
Union,  the  Bond  of  all  Things,  and  of  Man. 
Pride  then  was  not ;  nor  Arts,  that  Pride  to  aid  ; 
Man  walk'd  with  Beaft,  joint  Tenant  of  the  Shade. 

Now  let  us  hear  Mr.  DeCroufaz,  who  tells  us,  he  had  redoubled 
his  Atention  upon  this  Epijlle"^.' — Wiv.  Pope  (fays  \\c)  f peaks  with 
the  Affurance  of  an  Eye-witnefs  of  what  pajfcd  in  this  firfl  Age  of  the 
World  \. — And  why  (hould  he  not,  when  conduced  by  his  Faith 
in  Scripture  Hiftory? — That  which  he  here  reprefents,  fays  he,  is 
much  Icfs  credible  in  itfelf,  that  that  which  Mofes  teacheth  us  -f.  Now 
what  muft  we  think  of  our  Logician's  Faith,  who  taking  it  for 
granted,  that  Mr.  P<j/>(?  would  not  borrow  of  Afoy^/,  has  here  con- 
demned, before  he  was  aware,  the  Credibility  of  Scripture  Hifto- 
ry  ?  For  the  Account  here  given  of  the  State  of  Innocence  is  indeed 
no  other  than  that  of  Mofes  himfelf. 

He  goes  on — This  Religion,  common  to  Brutes  and  Men,  infinuaies 
to  uSf  that,  in  ihofc  happy  Times,  Men  had  no  more  Religion  than 
Brutes^. 

*  Commentaire,  p.  218,  t  lb.  p.  240. 

Vol.  VI.  Q  This 


1,4  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

This  HircwJ  Rcflcaion  points  at  the  following  Lines: 
In  the  lame  Temple,  the  refounding  Wood, 
All  vocal  Brings  hymii'd  their  equal  God. 

But  docs  not  the  Poet  fpcak,  in  this  very  place,  of  Man,  as  of- 
ficiating in  the  prieftly  Office  at  the  Altar,  and  offering  up  his. 
blamclefs  cucharillical  Sacrifice  to  Heaven  ? 

The  Sliriue  with  Gore  unftain'd,   with  Gold  undrcft, 
Unbrib'd,  unbloody,  flood  the  blamclefs  Prieft. 

As  to  the  Line, 

All  vocal  Beings  hymn'd  their  equal  God, 

our  Logician  ftiould  be  fent  to  Scripture  for  its  Meaning ;  who, 
had  he  been  as  converfant  with  the  Pfalmijl  ^s  with  Burgerfdiclus, 
would  have  learned  to  have  judged  more  pioufly  as  well  as  more 
ciiaritably.  The  tnfpired  Poet  calling  to  Mind  (as  Mr.  Pope  did 
here)  the  jige  of  Innocence,  and  full  of  the  great  Ideas  of  thofe 

< Chains  of  Love, 

Combining  ail  below,  and  all  above  ; 

which 

Draw  to  one  Point,  and  to  one  Centre  bring 
Beaji,  Man,  ox  Angel,  Servant,  l^ord,  or  King  ; 

breaks  out  into  this  rapturous  and  divine  Apoflrophe,  to  call  back 
the  devious  Creation  to  its  priftine  Redlitude.  That  verj  State 
Mr.  Pope  defcribes  above  : — "  Praife  the  Lord,  all  ye  Angeh  :  praife 
'*  him,  all  ye  Hofts.  Praife  him,  Sun  and  Moon  ;  praife  him,  -all. 
*'  ye  Stars  of  Light. '  Let  them  praife  tlie  Name  of.  the  Lord,  for. 
"  he  commanded,. and  they,  were  created.  Praife  the  Lord  frqm 
"  the  Earth,  ye  Dragons^  and  alj  Deeps :  Fire  and  Hail,  Suqw, 
"  and  Vapour,  ftormy  Wind  fulfilling  his  Word :  Mountains  and 
"  all  Hills,  fruitful  Trees,  and  all  Cedars  :  Beafis  and  all  Cattle, 
"  creeping  Things,  z.\\A  flying  Fowl :  Kings  of  the  Earth  and  all 
"  People  ;  Princes  and  all  Judges  of  the  Earth.     Let  them  prgife 

"  the 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.        iiy 

*'  the  Name  of  the  Lord  ;  for  his  Name  alone  Is  excellent,  his 
*'  Glory  is  above  the  Earth  and  Heaven."  Pfal-  cxlvlii. 

To  return.  Strid  Method  (in  which,  by  this  time,  the  Reader 
finds  the  Poet  more  converlant  than  our  Logician  was  aware  of) 
leads  him  next  to  fpeak  of  that  Society  which  fucceeded  the  n:itu~ 
ral,  namely  the  civil.  But  as  he  does  all  by  eafy  Steps,  in  the 
natural  Progreflion  of  Ideas,  he  firfl;  explains  [from  1.  169  to  200] 
the  intermediate  Means  which  led  Mankind  {lom  natural  to  civil  So- 
ciety.  Thefe  were  the  Invention  and  Improvement  of  Arts.  For 
while  Mankind  lived  in  a  mere  State  of  Nature,  unconfcious  of  the 
Arts  of  Life,  there  was  no  need  of  any  other  Government  than  the 
pater7ial\  but  when  Arts  were  found  out  and  improved,  then  that 
ipore  perfed  Form  under  the  Diredion  of  a  Magi/Irate  became 
neceffary.  And  for  thefe  Reafons;  Firjl,  to  bring  thofe  Arts,  al- 
ready found,  to  PerfeSlion ;  and,  Secondly,  to  fecure  the  Produd  of 
them  to  their  rightful  Proprietors.  The  Poet,  therefore,  comes 
now,  as  we  fay,  to  the  Invention  of  Arts  ;  but  being  always  intent 
on  the  great  End  for  whicli  he  wrote  his  E^jk*  namely,  to  mortify 
that  Pride,  which  occafions  the  impious  Complaints  againfl:  Provi- 
dence, he,  with  the  greateit  Art  and  Contrivance,  fpeaks  of  thefe 
Inventions,  as  only  Leffons  learnt  of  mere  Animals  guided  by  h\- 
flin£l ;  and  thus,  at  the  fame  time,  gives  a  new  Inllance  of  the 
wonderful  Providence  of  God,  who  has  contrived  to  teach  Man- 
kind in  a  Way  not  only  proper  to  humble  human  Arrogance,  but 
to  raife  our  Idea  of  infinite  Wifdom  to  the  greateft  Pitch.  All  this 
he  does  in  a  Profopopceia  the  moft  fublime  that  ever  entered  into  the 
human  Imagination  : 

See  him  from  Nature  rifing  flow  to  Art ! 

To  copy  InftinEi  then  was  Reafons  Part  : 

Thus  then  to  Man  the  Voice  of  Nature  fpake — 

"  Go,  from  the  Creatures  thy  Infl:rudions  take; 

*'  Thy  Arts  of  Building  from  the  Bee  receive, 

"  Learn  of  the  Mole  to  plow,  the  Worm  to  weave  ; 

Q  2  *'  Leara 


.,6  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  RY    O  N 

"  I, earn  of  the  little  NmuHus  to  Hill. 
•'  Spread  the  thin  Oar,  and  catch  the  driving  Gate,  £?r. 
"  Vet  go  !  and  thus  o'er  all  the  Creatures  iway, 
'•  Thus  let  the  Wilcr  nnake  the  refc  obey, 
♦«  And  for  thofc -^r/J  mtrt  hiJlwot  could  afi"ord, 
"  Be  crown  d  as  Monarchs,  or  as  Gods  adcr'ii.'" 
The  Delicacy  of  the  Poet's  AJdrefs,  in  the  firft  Part  of  the  laft 
Line,  is  very  remarkable.     I  obferved,  that,  in  this  Paragraph,  be 
lias  given  an  Account  of  thcfe  intervicdiate  Means  that  led  Man- 
kind  from  natural  to  civil  Society,  namely,    the   Invention  and 
Improvement  of  Arts.     Now  here,  on   his  Conclufion  of  this  Ac- 
count, and  Entry  upon   the  Defcription  of  civil  Society  itfelf,  he 
conneds  the  two  Parts  the  moft  gracefully  that  can  be   conceived, 
bv   tliis  true  hiflorical  Circumftance,  that  it  was   the  Invention  of 
thofe  Arts,  which  raifed  to  tlie  Magiftracy,  in  t\-ii^  ne%v  Society,  now 
formed  for  \.\\t  perfeBing  them. 

I  cannot  leave  this  Part  without  taking  notice  of  the  ftraiige 
Turn  the  Tranflator  has  given  to  thefe  two  Lines : 
Thus  then  to  Man  the  Voice  of  Nature  fpake — 
*'  Go,  from  the  Creatures  thy  Inftruclions  take." 

La  Nature  indigne  alors  Te  fit  entendre  ; 

Va,  maiheurcux  mortel,  va,  lui  dit-elle,  apprendre 

Des  plus  vils  animaux. 

One  would  wonder  what  fliould  make  him  reprefent  Nature  in  fucli 
a  Paflion  at  Man,  and  calling  him  Names,  when  Mr.  Pope  fuppofea 
her  in  her  beft  good  Humour,  and  Man  the  moft  happy  in  the  Di- 
reftion  here  given.  But  whaf  led  him  into  this  Miftake  was  ano- 
ther full  as  grofs :  Mr,  Pope  having  defcribed  the  State  of  Inno- 
cence, which  ends  at  thefe  Lines, 

Heaven's  Attribute  was  univerfal  Care, 

And  Man's  Prerogative  to  rule,  but  fpare, 

turns 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    M  A  ^^.         it; 

turns  from  thofe  Times  to  a  View  o^  tJicfc  latter  J-',es,  and    breaks 
out  into  this  tender  and  humane  Complaint : 

Ah,   how  unlike  the  Man  of  Times  to  covieV 

Of  half  that  live  the  Butcher  and  the  Tomb; 

Who,  Foe  to  Nature,  hears  the  general  Groan, 

Murders  their  Species,  and  betrays  his  own,  ^C 

Unluckily,  the  Tranflator  took  this  Man  of  Times  to  coiKi',  for 
the  Corrupter  of  that  yJ'r/?  Jlge\.^\\d  fo  imagined  the  Poet  had  in- 
troduced Nature  only  to  fet  things  right :  he  then  fuppofed,  cf 
courfe,  fhe  was  to  be  very  angry,  and  not  finding  Mr,  Pope  had  rc- 
prefented  her  in- any  great  Em.otion,  he  was  willing  to  imprcvo 
upon  his  Original... 

To  proceed,  after  all  this  neceflary  Preparation,  the  Poet  fhewsr 
[from  Li 99  to  211.]  how  C/w/  Snciety  followed,  and  the  Advan- 
tages it  produced.     But  thefe  are  bcft  defcribcd  in  his  own  Words  :  ■ 

Great  Nature  fpoke  ;  obfervant  Men  obey'd  ; 

Cities  were  built.  Societies  were  made  : 

Here  rofe  one  little  State ;  another  near- 

Grew  by  like  Means^  and  join'd  through  Love,  or  Fear, 

Did  liere  the  Trees  with  ruddier  Burthens  bend. 

And  there  the  Streams  in  purer  Rills  defcend  ? 

What  War  could  ravifli,  Commerce  could  bedow, 

And  he  return'd  a  Friend,  who  came  a  Foe. 

Converfe  and  Love  Mankind  might  ftrongly  draw, 

When  Love  was  Liberty,  and  Nature  Law* 

Thus  States  were  form'd. • 

Nothing  can  be  jufter  than  this  Account,  oc  more  corroborative 
of  the  Poet's  general  Theory..  Yet  his  Tranflator  has  a  ftrange> 
Fatality  in  contradiding  him,  whenever  he  attempts  to  paraphrufe . 
bis  Senfe. 

The  firft  Line  Mr.  PMbe  turns  thus. 

Par  ces  mots  la  Nature  excita  I'Liduftrie^t . 

Et.  de  P Homme  fercce  enchaina  lafurie. 

Chained  up  the  Fury  of  Savage  Man, .  And, 


,,B  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

And  i'o  coiitradlds  his  Author's  whole  Syftcm  of  Benevolence,  and 
goes  over  to  the  AthciA's,  who  fiippofcs  X.\\c  State  of  Nature  to  be  a 
Stale  of  War.  That  which  feems  to  have  mlflcd  him  was  thcfe 
Lines : 

Whnt  War  could  ravifli,  Commerce  could  beftow. 

And  he  return'd  a  Friend,  who  came  a  Foe. 

Eiit  the  Tranflator  fliould  have  confidered,  that  though  his  Author 
maintains  a  Sdite  of  Nature  to  be  a  State  of  Peace,  yet  he  never 
imagined  there  could  be  no  Quarrels  in  it.  He  well  knew,  that 
Self-lij'ce  drives  through  Jufi  and  through  Unjufl  *.  He  pu flies  no 
Syfiem  to  an  Extravagance ;  but  Jieers  between  DoBrines  feemingly 
oppofti  +,  or,  ill  other  Words,  follows  Truth  uniformly  through- 
out. 

Having  thus  explained  the  Original  oi  Civil  Society,  he  fhews  us 
next  [from  1.  210  to  216]  that  to  this  Society  a  civil  Magifirafe, 
properly  fo  called,  did  belong :  and  tills,  in  Confutation  of  that 
idle  Hypothefis  of  Filler,  and  others ;  which  pretends  that  God 
conferred  the  regal  Title  on  the  Fathers  of  Families,  from  whence 
Men,  when  they  had  inftituted  Society,  were  to  fetch  their  Magif- 
trates.  On  the  contrary,  our  Poet  fliews  that  zKing  was  unknown 
till  common  Intercjl,  which  led  Men  to  Inftitute  civil  Government, 
led  them,  at  the  fame  time,  to  inftitute  a  Governor.  However, 
that  it  is  true  that  the  fame  Wifdom  or  Valor,  which  gained  re'^-al 
Obedience  from  Sons  to  the  Sire^  procured /C/w^g-j  ^paternal  Autho- 
rity, and  made  them  confidered  as  Fathers  of  their  People.  Which 
probably  was  the  Original  (and,  while  miftaken,  continues  to  be 
the  z\<M:i  Support)  of  that  {lavlfli  Error  ;  Antiquity  reprefentlng  its 
^arlicft  Monarchs  under  the  Idea  of  a  common  Father,  -s^gcT^^  uvl^S^v. 
Afterwards  indeed  they  became  a  kind  oi  FoPr-Fathers,  ■:^o^^,'^vo. 
r^xu.,  as  Homer  calls  tliem  :  Till  at  length  they  begr.n  to  devour  that 
Flock  they  had  been  fo  long  accuflomcd  to>^r;  .and,  as  Plutarch 

•  Ep.  iii.  1.  .-70,  I  See  Preface. 

fays 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.         119 

feys  of  CecropS,  ex,  XP'*!^^  (3x(TtXsa'g  cxypiov  yr  S^ocTtovT-l^ri  yr.oy,eiis-j 
TYPANNON. 

— the  Name  of  King  unknown. 

Till  common  Intereil  placed  the  Sway  hi  one. 

'Twos  Virtue  only  (or  in  Arts,  or  Arms, 

DifTufing  Bleffings,  or  averting  Harms) 

The  fame  which  in  a  Sire  the  Sons  obey'd, 

A  Prince,  the  Father  of  a  People  made. 

Our  Author  has  good  Authority  for  his  Account  of  the  Origin  of 
Kingfliip.  Arijlotle  affures  us  of  this  Truth,  that  ^Twas  Virtue 
only  or  in  Arts  or  Arms.  Ka.9ffccjui  Bac-jXeuV  Ix  rm  sTrieiKuju  x.ctG''  uVs^o- 
%;^  df.eT7;g  7]  zs-pcA^euv  tuv  «Vo  Tr,g  Kpsrr^g,  TJ  xa^'  vvrepox'^"  TCi^ia 
yivaq    . 

The  Poet  now  returns  [at  1.  2  i  6  to  242]  to  what  he  had  left 
unfinifhed  in  his  Delcription  of  natural  Society.  This,  which  ap- 
pears irregular,  is  indeed  a  fine  Inftancc  of  his  thorough  Knowledge 
of  the  Art  of  Method.     1  will  explain  it. 

This  third  Epiflle,  we  lee,  confiders  ATan  with  rcfpcSi  to  Society  ;. 
the  fecond,  with  refpedl  to  him/elf -,  and  the  fourth,  with  refpecf  to 
Hcippinefs.  But  in  none  of  thefe  Relations  doesthe  Poet  ever  lofe-. 
fight  of  him  under  that  in  which  he  flands  to  God;  it  will  follow 
therefore,  that  fpeaking  of  him  with  rej'pedt  to  Society,  the  Ac- 
count would  be  then  mofl  imperfeft,  were  he  not  at  the  f^me  time, 
confidered  with  refpeSl  to  his  Religion  ;  for,  between  thefe  two 
there  is  a  clofe,  and,  while  Things  continue  in  Or^tr,  a  moil /Vi/t- 
rejlifig  Conncclion. 

True  Faith,  true  Policy,   united   ran; 

That  was  but  Love  of  God,  and'  this  of  Man.     1.  240. 

Now  Religion  fufFering,  no  Change-y  or  Dcpravatiofi,  whey  Man 
firft  entered  into  civil  Society,  but  conti^iiuing  the  fame  as  it?  the 
State  of  Nature,  the  Poet,  to  avoid  Repetition,  and  to  bring  the 

.;  *  Tolit.  lib.  V.  c.  10. 

Accounts 


A    COMMENTARY    ON 

Acv-'^/iit'  of  true  MxCifdlfe  Religion  nearer  to  one  another,  in  order 
to  cctir.ijl  ihcm  by  the  Advantage  of  that  Situation,  deferred  giv- 
ing Account  of  his  Religion,  till  he  had  fpoken  of  the  Origin  of 
tl\t!  Society.  Tiicnce  it  is,  that  he  here  refumes  the  Account  of 
the  Slate  of  Nature,  that  is,  fo  much  of  it  as  he  had  left  untouclied, 
wliich  was  only  the  Religion  of  it.  This  confifting  in  the  Know- 
Ifdge  of  one  God,  tlic  Creator  of  all  Things,  the  Poet  fliews  how- 
Men  came  by  that  Knowledge.  That  it  was  either  found  out  by 
Reason,  .which,  giving  to  every  Effedl  a  Caiife,  inftrufted  them  to 
go  from  Caufc  to  Caufc,  till  they  came  to  the  First,  who  being 
caufelt'fs,  would  ncctfflarily  be  judged  felf-exijleiit :  Or  taught  by 
Tradition,  wlilcli  preferved  the  Memory  of  the  Creation. — He 
then  tells  ais  luhat  thefe  Men,  undebauched  by  falfe  Science,  un- 
derflood  by  God's  Nature  and  Attributes.  i/7.  Of  God's  Na^ 
turc ;  tliat  they  eafdy  dlftingulflied  between  the  IVorkman  and  the 
Wvrk ;  and  faw  the  Subjlance  of  the  Creator  to  be  dlftin£l  and  dif- 
ferent from  thai  of  the  Creature;  and  fo  were  in  no  Danger  of 
falling  Into  the  horrid  Opinion  of  the  Greek  Phllofophers,  and  their 
Follower  Spinoza.  And  fimple  Reafon  teaching  them,  that  the 
Creator  was  but  One,  they  eafily  faw  that  all  was  right  ;  and  were 
in  as  little  Danger  of  falling  into  the  Manichean  Error,  which, 
when  oblique  JVit  had  hroke  the  fleddy  Light  of  Reafon,  imagined 
all  was  not  rights  "having  before  imagined  all  was  not  the  Work  of 
One.  idly.  What  they  underftood  of  God's  Attributes  ;  that  they 
eafily  conceived  a  "Father  where  they  had  found  a  Deity^  and  that  a 
fiver eign'Being  could  ovAy  ht  z.fovereignGood. 

Till  then,  by  Nature  crown'd,  each  Patriarch  fate. 
King,  Prieft,  ^nd  Parent  of  his  growing  State  : 
On  htm,  x.\\t:\T  fecond  Providence,  they  hung, 
Their  Law  Ills  "Eye;  the'rr  Oracle  his  Tongue,  C^c. 
Till  drooping,  Tickcning,  dying,  they  began 
Whom  they  rever'd  as  God,  to  mourn  as  Man. 

I.  Then, 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.        121 

I. 

Then,  looking  up  from  Sire  to  Sire,  explor'd 
Oiie  great  firfl  Father,  and  that  Firft  ador'd. 

II. 

Or  plain  Tradition  that  this  2.11  begu/:, 
Convey'd  unbroken  Faith  from  Sire  to  Son. 

I. 

The  Worker  from  the  Work  diftind  was  known, 
And  fimple  Reafon  never  fought  but  one. 
Ere  Wit  oblique  had  broke  that  fteddy  Light, 
Man,  like  his  Maker,  faw  that  n/I  was  right. 

II. 

To  Virtue  in  the  Paths  of  Pleafure  trod. 
And  own'd  a  Father  when  he  o\vn'd  a  God. 
Love  all  the  Faith,  &c. 

Our  methodical  Tranflator,  not  apprehending  that  the  Poet  was 
here  returned  to  finifh  his  Defciiptlon  of  the  State  of  Nature,  has 
fallen  into  one  of  the  groffeil  Miftakes  that  ever  was  committed. 
He  has  taken  this  Account  of  true  Religion,  for  an  Account  of  the 
Origin  of  Idolatry,  and  thus  fatally  embellifhes  his  own  Blunder, 

Jaloux  d'en  conferver  les  traits  et  la  figure, 
Leur  zele  induftrleux  inventa  la  Peinture. 
Leurs  neveux,  attentifs  a  ces  hommes  fameux. 
Qui  par  le  droit  du  fang  avoient  regne  fur  eux, 
Trouvent-ils  dans  leur  fuite  \\n  grand,  un  premier  pere, 
Leur  aveugle  refpedl  I'adore  et  le  revere. 

Here  you  have  one  of  the  finefl:  Pieces  of  Reafoning  in  the  World, 
turned,  at  once,  into  as  mere  a  Heap  of  Nonfenfe.  You  will 
wonder  how  it  came  about :  The  unlucky  Term  oi  Great  Jirft  Fa- 
ther confounded  our  Tranflator,  an-d  he  took  it  to  fignify  a  Great- 
Grandfather.     But  he  fliould  have  conjidercd  that  Mr.  Pope  always 

Vol.  VI.  R  reprefents 


A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

rcprcfcnts  God  as  every  wife  and  good  Man  would  do,  and  as  our 
Religion  dircdls  us  to  do,  under  the  Idea  of  a  Father  :  He  (hould 
have  chfcrvcii  lliat  the  Pott  is  here  delciibing  thofc  Men,  who 
To  Virtue  in  the  Fatl)S  of  Plcafure  trod, 
And  own'd  a  Falbcr,  where  they  owa'd  a  God. 

You  may  be  fure  Mr.  De  Croufaz  has  not  let  let  thefe  fine 
Strokes  about  the  Or/JT///.;/ o/"  Ptf/«//»^  efcape  him.  But  here  the 
Critic  (which  is  a  Wonder)  proves  clearer-fighted  than  the  Tranf- 
lator ;  lie  iaw  that  the  Lines  in  Queftion  were  a  Continuation  of 
fomcthing  not  imnud'iatdy  preceding  ;  but  that  was  all  he  faw,  as 
may  appear  by  his  fagacious  Remark.  "  We  fliall  be  mlftaken 
'*  (fays  he)  if  we  regard  this  Pafliige  as  a  Continuation  of  the 
•'  Illftory  immediately  going  before.  It  would  be  too  great  an 
•'  Anachronifm  to  fuppofe  it.  The  Government  of  Fathers  of 
♦♦  Families  did  not  fucceed  that  of  Kings;  on  the  contrary,  the 
"  Reign  oi  thrfe  was  eftabliflitd  on  the  Government  oi thofe*." 

Order  leads  the  Poet  to  fpeak  next  [from  I.  241  to  246]  of  the 
Corruption  of  civil  Society  into  Tyranny,  and  its  Caufcs  ;  and  here, 
with  all  the  /Irl  of  AJdrefs^  as  well  as  Truth,  he  obferves,  it  arofe 
from  the  Violation  of  that  great  Principle,  which  he  fo  much 
infifts  upon  throughout  liis  Eflay,  Fhai  each  -was  made  for  the  Vfi 
of  all: 

Who  fird  taught  Souls  enflav'd,  and  Realms  undone, 

Th' enormous  Faith  oi  many  made  for  one? 

That  proud  Exception  to  all  Nature's  Laws, 

T' Invert  the  World,  and  counterwork  its  Caufe. 
And  In  this  Ariflotle  places  the  Difference  between  a  King  and  a 
Tyrant;  that  the>_^  fuppofes  himfelf  made  for   the  People;  the 
ether,  that  the  People  are  made  for  him  +. 

*  Coraratiitairc,  p.  249. 
t^B«.,l..  i-  0  BAZIAE^S  .:...  ^',..{,  -l,,,  ,:  ^;,  ,„^^^.„.  ^,^  ,^,^^^   ^^5.,  .^^^^  ^.^^^^^^^  . 

i^ol.    I,  V.    C.  10. 

But 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  123 

But  we  may  be  lure,  that  in  this  Corruption,  where  natural 
Juftice  was  thrown  aiide,  and  Force,  the  Atheill's  Juftice,  prefided 
in  its  ftead,  Religion  would  follow  the  Fate  of  civil  Society.  We 
know,  from  ancient  Hiltory,  it  did  fo.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Pope 
[from  1.  245  to  270]  with  corrupt  Politics  defcribes  corrupt  Reli- 
gion and  its  Caufes  ;  he  frjl  informs  us,  agreeable  to  his  exa£b 
Knowledge  of  Antiquity,  that  it  was  the  Politician,  and  not  the 
Priest  (as  our  illiterate  Tribe  of  Free-thinkers  would  make  us  be- 
lieve) who  firil:  corrupted  Religion.  Secondly,  that  the  Supersti- 
tion, he  brought  in,  was  not  invented  by  him,  as  an  Engine  to 
jilay  upon  others  (as  the  dreaming  Alheijl  feigns,  who  would  thus 
miferably  account  for  the  Origin  of  Religion),  but  was  a  T^rop  he 
firfl  fell  into  himfelf 

Force  firft  made  ConqueH:,  and  that  Conqueil,  Law ; 

Till  Superjlition  taught  the  Tyrant  ozve, 

T\\t\\jliard  the  Tyranny,  then  lent  it  aid. 

And  Gods  of  Conquerors,  Slaves  of  Subjects  made. 

All  this  is  agreeable  to  the  Poet's  vaft  Knowledge  of  human 
Nature.  For  that  Impotency  of  Mind,  as  the  hatin  Writers  call 
it*,  which  gives  Birth  to  the  enormous  Crimes  neceffary  to  fup- 
port  a  Tyranny,  naturally  fubjeds  its  Owner  to  all  the  vain,  as 
well  as  real  Terrors  of  Confcience.  Hence  the  whole  Machinery 
of  Superjlition. 

She,  'midft  the  Lightning's  Blaze  and  Thunder's  Sound, 
When  rock'd  the  Mountains,  and  when  groan'd  the  Ground, 
She,  from  the  rending  Earth  and  burfting  Skies, 
Saw  Gods  defcend,  and  Fiends  infernal  rife. 

And  it  is  no  Wonder  that  thofe,  who  had  fo  impioufly  attempted 
to  counterwork  the  Defign  of  Nature,  by  a6ting  as  if  many  -were 

*  They  exprefled  the  Pajion  for  tyrarmizitig  by  this  Word.  A  fine  Roman  Hiftorian 
fays  of  Marius,  that  he  was  Gloria  infatiabilis,  impotens  femptr^ue  inquietus.  And  of 
F»n>pcy,  P ottntla  fua  nunq^uam  aut  raro  «</ impotentiam  ufm. 

R  a  7uade 


1J4  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

tftaJe  f'.r  one,  Hioiilil  now  Imagine  tliey  law  all  Nature  arming  In 

Vctjgcancc  ag:iiiirt  tlieni. 

It  is  true,  the  Poet  oljli-rves,  that  afterwards,  when  the  Tyrant^* 
Fright  was  over,  lie  liad  Cunning  enough,  from  theExperlcnce  of 
the.  Ertia  of  SoiKrClition  upon  himfelf,  to  turn  it  by  the  Afliftance 
of  the  Pricrt  (who  for  his  Reward  went  Shares  with  him  in  the 
Tyranny)  as  his  bcfl  Defence  againO:  his  Subje£ts> 

Witli  Heaven's  own  Thunders  fliook  the  World  below, 
And  pl.iy'd  the  God  an  Engine  on  his  Foe. 

For  a  Tyrant  naturally  and  rcafonably  takes  all  his  SLves  for  his 
Enemies. 

Having  given  the  Catifes  of  SupcrAltion,  he  next  defcribes  its 
Oljcils  ; 

Gods  partial,  changeful,  paffionate,  uiijulT:, 
Whofe  Attributes  were  Rage,  Revenge,  and  Lufi  : 
Such  as  the  Souls  of  Cowards  might  conceive. 
And,  form'd  like  Tyrants,  Tyrants  would  believe. 

The  ancient  Pagan  Gods  are  here  very  exaflly  defcribed.  This 
Fa£t  is  a  convincing  Evidence  of  the  Truth  of  that  Original  which 
the  Poet  gives  to  Superftltion  :  For  if  thefe  Phantafms  were  firft 
rnifed  in  the  Imagination  of  Tyrants,  they  muft  needs  have  the 
Qualities  here  afligned  them.  For  Force  being  the  Tyrant's  Virtue^ 
and  Luxury  his  Happ'tnefs,  the  Attributes  of  his  God  would  of 
Courfc  be  Revenge  and  Lujl ;  in  a  Word,  the  Antitype  of  himfelf. 
But  there  was  another,  and  more  fubftantial  Caufe,  of  the  Refemblance 
between  a  Tyrant  and  a  Fagan  God\  and  that  was  the  making  Goh 
of  Cr.nqutrors,  as  the  Poet  fays,  and  fo  canonizing  a  Tyrant's  Vices 
with  his  Per/on.  That  thefe  Gods  ihould  fuit  a  People  humbled 
to  the  Stroke  of  a  Mafler,  will  be  no  Wonder,  if  we  recoiled  a  ge- 
nerous Saying  of  the  Ancients  \—rhat,  that  Day  which  fees  a  MaJi 
a  Slaxe,  takes  away  half  his  Virtue. 

The 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON     MAN.         raj. 

The  Inference  our  Poet  draws  from. all  this  [from  1.  269  to  284] 
is,  that  Self-love  drives  through  Right  and  Wrong ;  it  caufes  tiie 
Tyrant  to  violate  the  Rights  of  Mankind  ;  aad  it  Cuufts  the  People- 
to  vindicate  that  Violation.  For  Self-love  being  common  to  tiie 
whole  Species,  and  fetting  each  Individual  in  purfuit  of  the  fame 
Obje(5ls,  it  became  neceflary  for  each,  if  he  would  fecure  his  own,, 
to  provide  for  the  Safety  of  another's.  And  thus  Equity  and  Be- 
i^evolence  arofe  from  that  fame  Self-love  which  had  given  Birth  to 
Avarice  and  hjjufticc. 

For  what  one  likes,,  if  others  like  as  well, 

What  ferves  one  Will,  when  many  Wills  rebel  ? 

How  {hall  he  keep,  what  fleeping  or  awake 

A  Weaker   may  furprife,  a  Stronger  take  ? 

His  Safety  muft  his  Liberty  reftrain ; 

All  join  to  guard  what  each  defires  to  gain. 

The  Poet  hath  not  any  where  (hewn  greater  Addrefs  in  the  maf- 
.terly  Difpofition  of  his  Work,  than  with  regard  to  the  Inference 
before  us  ;  which  not  only  gives  a  proper  and  timely  Support  tO' 
what  he  had  before  advanced,  in  his  fecond  Ep'ijlle,  concerning  the 
Nature  and  EfFefts  of  Self-love ;  but  is  a  neceflary  Introduftion  to 
what  follows  concerning  the  Reformation  ox  Religion. T^nCi- Society,  as 
we  fhall  fee  prefently. 

The  Poet  hath  now  defcribed  the  Rife,  Perfedion,  and'Decay  of 
civil  Policy  and  Religion,  in  the  more  early  Ages.  But  the  Dtfigii 
liad  been  imperfedtly  executed,  had  he  here  dropp'd  his  Difcourfe  j- 
there  was,  after  this,  a  Recovery  from  their  feveral  Corruption s^ 
Accordingly,  he  hath  chofen  that  happy  Period  for  the  Conclufioiv 
of  his  Song.  But  as  good  and  ill  Governments  and  Rcligioi:is 
fucceed  one  another  without  ceafing,  he  now,  with  great  Judg- 
ment, leaves  FaSls,  and  turns  his  Difcourfe  [from  1.  283  to  296] 
to  fpeak  of  a  more  lafling  Reform  of  Mankind,  in  the  Inventioii 
of   thofe   philofophic    Principles^    by    whofe   Obfervance    a    Policy 

and: 


,  -6  A    C  O  I^IM  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

and  R^li^ion  may  be  for  ever  kept  from  finking  into  Tyranny  and 

Sit^ajiit'ion. 

'Uvai  then  the  ftudious  Head,  or  generous  Mind, 

Follower  of  God,  or  Friend  of  human  Kind, 

Poet  or  Patriot  rofe,  but  to  reftore 

The  Faith  and  Morals,  Nature  gave  before; 

Relum'd  her  ancient  Light,  not  kindled  new. 

If  not  God's  Image,  yet  his  Shadow  drew  ; 

Taught  Power's  due  Ufe  to  People  and  to  Kings, 

Taught  not  to  flack,  nor  drain  its  tender  Strings,  ^c. 

The  eafy  and  jufl:  Tranfition  into  this  Subjedt,  from  the  fore- 
going, is  admirable.  In  the  foregoing,  he  had  defcribed  the  Effeas 
of  Self-love ;  now  the  Ohfervation  of  thefe  EfFefts,  he,  with  great 
Art  and  high  Probability,  makes  the  Occafion  of  thofe  Dlfcovcries, 
which  fpeculative  Men  made  of  the  inte  Principles  of  Policy  and 
Religion,  defcribed  in  the  prefent  Paragraph  ;  and  this  he  evidently 
hints  at  in  that  fine  Tranfition, 

'TwAS  THEN  the  fliidious  Head,  &c. 

Mr.  De  Croufaz,  who  faw  nothing  of  this  Beauty,  fays, — It  is 
not  eafy  to  guefs  to  what  Epoch  Mr,  Pope  would  have  us  refer  his 
THEN  *.  He  has  indeed  proved  himfelf  no  good  GueJJer,  which  yet 
is  tlie  befl:  Quality  of  a  Critic.  I  will  therefore  tell  him  with- 
out more  ado,  Mr.  Pope  meant  the  polite  and  flour iflnng  Age  of 
Greece;  and  thofe  Benefaftors  to  Mankind,  which,  I  prefume, 
he  had  principally  in  View,  were  Socrates  and  Arijlotle^  who, 
of  all  the  Pagan  World,  fpoke  befl  of  God^  and  wrote  befl  of  Go- 
•vernment. 

Having  thus  defcribed  the  true  Principles  of  civil  and  ecclefafli-' 
ral  Policy,  the  great  Poet  proceeds  [from  1.  295  to  305]  to  illuftrate 
Lis  Account  by  th,c  fmnllar  Harmony  of  the  Univerfe : 

*  Commentaire,  p.  261. 

Such 


Mr.    POPE'S     ESSAY    ON     MAN.         127 

Such  Is  the  World's  great  Harmony,  that  fprings 

From  Union,  Order,  full  Concent  of  Things  ! 

Where  fmall  and  great,  where  weak  and  might;y,  made^ 

To  ferve,  not  fuffer,   itrengthen,  not  invade, 

IMore  powerful  each  as   needful  to  the  refl,. 

And  in  proportion  as  it  blefles,  blefl:. 

Draw  to  one  Point,  and  to  one  Centre  bring- 

Beaft,  Man,  or  Angel,  Servant,  Lord,  or  King. 

Tlius,  as  in  the  Begimiiig  of  this  Epiftle,  he  fupported  the  gn^/if 
Principle  of  mutual  Love  or  Affociation  in  general^  by  Confiderations 
drawn  from  the  Properties  of  Matter,  and  the  mutual  Depetidencc 
between  vegetable  and  animal  Life;  fo,  in  the  Conclujioriy  he  has 
in  forced  the  particular  Principles  of  civil  and  religious  Society,  from; 
that  univerfal  Harmony  which  fprings,  in  part,  from  thofe  Proper- 
ties and  "Dependencies . 

But  now  the  Foet,  having  fo  much  commended  the  Invention 
and  hiventors  of  the  philofophic  Principles  of  Religion  and  Govern- 
ment, left  an  evil  Ufe  fhould  be  made  of  this,  by  Men's  refling 
in  Theory  and  Speculati'-jn,  as  they  have  been  always  too  apt  to  do,, 
in  Matters  whofe  Pni^iice  makes  their  Happinefs,  he  cautions- 
his  Reader  [from  1.  304  to  311]  againfl  this  Error,  in  a  Warmth 
of  ExpreJJion,  which  the  fublime  Ideas  of  that  univerfal  Harfuoiiv^. 
operating  inceflantly  to  univerfal  Good^  had  raifed  up  in  him. 

For  Forms  of  Government  let  Fools  conteft  ; 

Whatever  is  beft  adminifter'd  is  beft. 

For  Modes  of  Faith  let  gracelefs  Zealots  figlit ; 

His  can't  be  wrong,  whofe  Life  Is  in  the  Right. 

All  xnuft  be  fi\ire,  that  thwart  this  one  great  End,. 

And  all  of  God,  that  blefs  Mankind,  or  mend. 

The  Seafonablenefs  of  this  Reproof  will  appear  evident  enouglL 
to  thofe  who  know,  that  mad  Difputes  about  Liberty  and  Preroga- 
tive  had  once  well   nigh   overturned  our  Conftitution  ;   and  tha^ 

otlicr-3 


,,t  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  TARY    O  N 

otlicrs  about  Myfi^ry  nnd  Church  Authority  had  almoft  deftroyed 

the  vcrv  Spirit  of  our  holy  Religion.  • 

But  thelc  fine  Lines  have  been  ftiangely  mifunderflood.  The 
Author,  againrt  his  own  exprefs  Words,  againfl  the  plain  Senfe 
of  his  Syftcni,  has  be-cn  conceived  to  mean,  That  all  Governments 
and  all  Religion!,  ivere,  as  to  their  Forms  and  Objeas,  indifferent. 
But  as  this  wrong  Judgment  proceeded  from  Ignorance  of  the 
Rtafon  of  the  Reproof,  as  explained  above,  that  Explanation  is 
alone  fufficient  to  re^ify  the  Miftake. 

Ho\ve%'er,  not  to  leave  him  under  the  leaft  Sufpicion,  in  a  Matter 
CI  fo  much  Importance,  I  fliall  juftify  the  Senfe  here  given  to 
this  PafTage  more  at  large.  Firfl  by  confidering  the  IVords 
thmfelvcs :  And  then  by  comparing  this  mlftakea  Senfe  with  the 
Context. 

The  Poet,  we  mufl  obfcrvc,  is  here  fpcaking,  not  of  civil  Society 
at  targe,  but  of  a  j///?  legitimate  Policy, 

Th'  according  Mufic  of  a  well-mi x'd  State. 

Now  tlicfe  are  of  feveral  Kinds ;  in  fome  of  which  the  Democratic, 
in  others  the  A'ijhcratic,  and  in  others  the  Monarchic  Form  pre- 
vails. Now  as  each  ofthefe  mix" d  Forms  is  equally  legitimate,  as 
being  founded  on  the  Principles  of  natural  Liberty,  that  Man  is 
guilty  of  the  higheft  Folly,  who  chiifes  rather  to  employ  himfelf 
in  a  fpeculative  Conteft  for  the  fuperior  Excellence  of  one  of  thefe 
Forms  to  the  reft,  than  in  promoting  the  good  Adminiftration  of 
tliat  fettled  Form  to  which  he  is  fubjedl.  Aud  yet  all  our  warm 
Difputcs  about  Government  have  been  of  this  kind.  Again,  if, 
by  Forms  of  Government,  muft  needs  be  meant  legitimate.  Govern- 
ment, becaufe  that  is  the  Subjed  under  Debate,  then  by  Modes  of 
Faith,  which  is  the  correfpondent  Idea,  mufl  n-eeds  be  meant  tlie 
Modes  or  E'<planat:ons  of  the  true  Faith,  becaufe  the  Author  is 
ihere  too  on  the  Subjcdl  of  true  Religion  • 

Reilum'd  her  ancient  Light,  not  kindled  new. 

Beiides, 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  129 

Befides,  the  very  Expreflioa  (than  which  nothing  can  be  more 
precife)  confines  us  to  underftand,  by  Modes  of  Fa'tth^  thofe  hu- 
man Explanations  of  Chriftian  Myfteries,  in  contefting  which,  Zeal 
and  Ignorance  have  fo  perpetually  violated  Charity. 

Secondly,  If  we  confider  the  Context  \  to  fuppofe  him  to  mean, 
that  all  Forms  of  Government  are  indifferent,  is  making  him  diredlly 
contradicH:  the  preceding  Paragraph  ;  where  he  extols  the  Patriot 
for  difcriminating  the  true  from  the  falfe  Modes  of  Government. 
He,  fays  the  Poet, 

Taught  Power's  due  Ufe  to  People  and  to  Kings, 

Taught  not  to  flack,  nor  flrain  its  tender  Strings  ; 

The  lefs  and  greater  fet  fo  juftly  true. 

That  touching  one  mufl  ftrike  the  other  too ; 

'Till  jarring  Interefts  of  themfelves  create 

Th'  according  Miific  of  a  well-mix" d  State. 

Here  he  recommends  the  true  Form  of  Government,  which  is  the 
mht.  In  another  Place  he  as  flrongly  condemns  the  falfe^  or  the 
abfolute  "Jure  Dlvino  Form  : 

For  Nature  knew  no  Right  Divine  in  Men.     1.  237. 

To  fuppofe  him  to  mean,  that  all  Religions  are  indifferent,  is 
an  equally  wrong  as  well  as  uncharitable  Sufpicion.  Mr.  Pope, 
though  his  Subjed  in  this  Fffay  on  Man  confines  him  to  natural 
Religion  (his  Purpofe  being  to  vindicate  God's  natural  Difpen- 
fatlons  to  Mankind  againfl  the  Atheift),  yet  gives  frequent  In- 
timations of  a  more  fublime  Dlfpenfation,  and  even  of  the  Ne- 
ceffity  of  it;  particularly  in  his  fccond  Epiflle  [1.  139],  where  he 
fpeaks  of  the  JVeaknefs  and  Infufficiency  of  human  Reafon  *. 

Again,  in  his  fourth  Epiftle  [1.  331]  fpeaking  of  the  good  Man, 
the  Favourite  of  Heaven,  he  fays, 

For  him  alone,  Hope  leads  from  Goal  to  Goal, 
And  opens  iWl,  and  opens  on  his  Soul ; 

*  See  the  fecond  Letter,  p.  ^. 

Vol.  VI.  S  Till 


ty>  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

Till  Iciigthen'd  on  to  Fultb,  and  unconllii'd, 

It  pourj  the  IJlUs  that  fills  up  all  the  Mind. 
But  tuituriil  Religion  never  lengthened  Hope  on   to  Fciitb ;  nor  did 
any  Religion,  but  the  Chriftian,  ever  conceive   that  Faith  could 
fill  the  Mind  with  Happinefs. 

LajUy,  The  Poet,  in  this  very  Epiaie,  and  in  this  very  Place, 
fpeakin'g  of  the  great  Reftorers  of  tiie  Religion  of  Nature,  inti- 
mates that  they  could  only  draw  God's  Shadow,  not  his  Image  : 

Rclum'd  her  ancient  Light,  not  kindled  new. 

If  not  Goifs  Imoge,  yet  his  Skadozv  drew. 
As   reverencing  that  Truth,    which   tells   us   that   this    Difcovery 
was  relcrved/or  the  glorious  Gofpel  of  ChrlH-,  who  is  the  Image  o,p 
God*. 

Having  tlius  largely  confidered  T\Ian  In  his  fecial  Capacity,  tlie 
Poet,  in  order  to  fix  a  momentous  Truth  in  the  Mind  of  his  Rea- 
der, concludes  the  Epiftle  hi  recapitulating  the  two  Principles  which 
concur  to  the  Support  of  this  Part  of  his  Charader,  namely,  Self- 
hve  MMi  facial ;  and  fliewing  that  they  are  only  two  different  Mo- 
tions of  the  Jppetite,  to  Good,  by  which  the  Author  of  Nature  has 
cnnblcd  Man  to  find  his  oivn  Happinefs  in  the  Happinefs  of  the 
JFhole.  This  the  Poet  illuftrates  wnth  a  Thought  as  fubllme  as  is 
that  general  Harmony  he  defcribes : 

On  their  own  Axis  as  the  Planets  run. 

Yet  make  at  once  their  Circle  round  the  Sun  ; 

So  two  confiftent  Motions  ad  the  Soul, 

And  one  regards  itfelf,  and  one  the  Whole, 

Thus  God  and  Nature  link'd  the  general  Frame, 

And  bad  Self-love  zndfocial  be  the  fame. 

For  he  hath  the  Art  of  converting  Poetical  Ornaments  Into 
Phllofophic  Reafoning ;  and  of  improving  a  Simile  into  an  Analo- 
gical Jrguwent.     But  of  this  Art,  more  in  our  Next. 

*  2  Cor.  iv.  4. 

LETTER 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.         t^X 


LETTER       IV. 


TH  E  Poet,  ill  the  two  foregoing  Epiftles,  having  confidered 
Man  with  regard  to  the  Means  (that  is,  in  all  bis  RelationSy 
whether  as  an  Individual,  or  a  Member  of  Society  J  comes  now, 
in  this  laft,  to  confider  him  with  regard  to  the  End,  that  is, 
Happiness. 

It  opens  with  an  Invocation  to  Happinefs,  in  the  Manner  of  the 
ancient  Puefs,  who,  when  deflitute  of  a  Patron  God,  apphed  to  the 
Mufe,  and,  if  fhe  was  engaged,  took  up  with  any  fimple  Virtue, 
next  at  hand,  to  infpire  and  profper  their  Deligns.  This  was  the 
ancient  Invocation,  which  few  modern  Poets  have  had  the  Art  to 
imitate  with  any  degree  of  Spirit  or  Decorum  ;  while  our  Author, 
not  content  to  heighten  this  poetic  Ornament  with  the  Graces  of 
the  Antique,  hath  alfo  contrived  to  make  it  fubfervient  to  the  Me- 
thod and  Reafoning  of  his  philofophic  Compofitlon.  I  will  endea- 
vour to  explain  fo  uncommon  a  Beauty. 

It  is  to  be  obferved  that  the  Pagan  Deities  had  each  xk\Q:\v  fever al 
Names  and  Places  of  Abode,  \yith  fome  of  which  they  were  fup- 
pofed  to  be  more  delighted  than  with  others,  and  confequently  to 
be  then  mofl;  propitious  when  invoked  by  the  favourite  Name  and 
Place:  Hence  we  find  the  Hymns  of  Homer,  Orpheus,  and  Calli' 
macbus,  to  be  chiefly  employed  in  enumerating  the  feveral  Names 

S  2  and 


r^j  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

and  riaccs  of  Abode  by  which  the  Patron  God  was  dilVinguinied. 
Now,  our  Poet,  with  great  and  maftcrly  Addrels,  hath  made 
thcfc  two  CircumftiinCiS  Itrvc  to  introduce  his  Subje£l,  according 
to  the  cxadcft  Rulci  of  Logic.  His  Purpofe  is  to  write  of  ILip- 
'pinefi ;  Method  therefore  requires  that  he  firft  define  what  Men 
mean  by  liapphufs,  and  this  he  does  in  the  Ornament  of  a  poetic 
Invccjtion: 

O  Happinefi  !  our  Being's  End  and  Aim, 

Good,  PUafure,  Eaje,  Co^/t;// /^whatc'er  thy  Name. 

After  the  Definition,  that  which  follows  next,  in  order  of 
Method,  is  the  Proposition,  which  here  is,  thai  human  Happinefi 
cmfijls  not  in  external  Advantages^  but  In  Virtue.  For  the  Subjeft  of 
this  Epiftlc  is  the  detefiing  the  falfe  Notions  of  Happinefs,  and 
fettling  and  explaining  the  true ;  and  this  the  Poet  lays  down 
in  the  next  fixteen  Lines.  Now  the  Enumeration  of  Happinefi'' s 
feveral  fuppofed  Places  of  Abode  (vviiich,  in  Imitation  of  the  an- 
cient Potts,  he  next  mentions  in  the  Invocation,  and  which  makes 
ten  of  the  fixteen  Lines)  is  a  Summary  oi falfe  Happinefs,  placed  in 
Externals : 

Plant  of  Celeftial  Seed  !  if  dropt  below. 
Say  in  what  mortal  Soil  thou  deign'll:  to  grow  ? 
Fair  opening  to  fome  Court's  propitious  Shine, 
Or  deep  with  Diamonds  in  the  flaming  Mine  ? 
Tvvin'd  with  the  Wreaths  rarncijfum  Laurels  yield, 
Or  reap'd  in  Iron  Harvejls  or  the  Field  ? 

The  fix  remaining  Lines  deliver  the  true  Notion  of  Happinefs  to 
be  in  Virtue.     "Which  is  fumm'd  up  in  thefe  two; 
Fixt  to  no  Spot  is  Happinefs  fincere, 
'Tis  no  where  to  be  found,  or  every  where. 
The  Poet,  having  thus  defined  his  ^erms,  and  laid  down  his 
Propofiuion,  proceeds  to  tlie  Support  of  his  Thefts ;  the  various  Ar- 
guments of  which  make  up  the  body  of  the  Epiftle. 

He 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON     MAN.  133 

He  begins  [from  1.  18  to  27]  with  deteding  thefn/fe  Notions  of 
Happlneji,  Thefe  are  of  two  kinds,  the  PhilcjopLical  and  PobiiUir ; 
The  latter  he  had  recapitulated  in  the  Invocailon,  wlicu  Happincfs 
was  call'd  upon  at  her  feveral  fuppofed  Places  of  Abode  ;  the  Phi- 
lofophic  then  only  remained  to  be  delivered. 

Afkof  the  Li^^r/iV  the  Way,  the  Learn'd  are  blind. 

This  bids  to  Jerve,  and  that  tojbun  Mankind  : 

Some  place  the  Blils  in  j4£lion^  fome  in  Eafe  ; 

'I'hole  call  it  Pieafure,  and  Contentment  thefe. 

The  Confutation  of  thefe  Philofophic  Errors,  he  Ihews  to  be  very 
eafy,  one  common  Fallacy  xmm'ing  through  them  all;  namely  this. 
That,  inflead  of  telling  us  in  what  the  Happ'tnefs  of  human  Nature 
confifts,  which  was  what  was  afked  of  them,  each  bufies  himfelf 
to  explain  in  what  he  placed  bis  oivn  peculiar  Happinef  : 

Who  thus  define  it,  fay  they  more  or  lefs 

Than  this,  that  Happinefs  is  Happinefs  ? 

And  here,  before  we  go  any  farther,  it  will  be  proper  to  turn  to 
our  Logician,  who,  blind  to  thefe  Beauties  in  the  admirable  Dif- 
pofition  of  the  Subjed:,  is  extremely  fcandalized  at  the  Poet  for  not 
proceeding  immediately  to  explain  true  Happinefs  (after  having  de- 
fined his  Terms  and  delivered  his  Thefis)  but  for  going  back  again 
(as  he  fancies)  to  a  Confideration  of  the  fafe. — Speaking  of  the 
fixteen  Lines,  he  fays — "  Happinefs  is  then  near  me,  and  I  feel 
*' myfelf  confiderably  refrefhed  j  but,  by  ill  Luck,  it  is  only  for  a 
*'  Moment,  my  Doubts  prefently  return,  and  I  find  myfelf  in  the 
"  Hands  of  a  Poet,  who  can  do  what  he  will  with  me,  and  who 
"  having  placed  me  on  the  very  Borders  of  Happinefs,  on  a  fudden 
"  fhuts  up  all  its  Avenues*." 

But  a  very  little  Patience  and  Impartiality  would  have  (hewn 
him,  that  they  were  immediately  laid  open  again  in  the  very  next 
Lhies  [from  26  to  33]  where  the  Poet  fliews,  that  if  you  will  but 

*  Comiiientaire,  p.  271. 

take 


A     C  O  M  M  E  N  TA  RY    O  N 

take  tl-.c  Road  oi  Suture,  and  leave  that  of  mad  Opinion,  you  will 
foon  find  Happlnefs  to  be  a  Good  of  the  Species,  and,  like  com- 
men  Senfe,  equally  diftributcd  to  all  Mankind : 

Take  Nature's  Patli,  and  mad  Opinion's  leave. 

All  States  can  reach  it,  and  all  Heads  conceive; 

Obvious  her  Goods,  in  no  Extreme  they  dwell. 

There  needs  but  thinking  right,  and  meaning  well ; 

And,  mourn  our  various  Portions  as  we  pleafe, 

Equal  is  common  Senfe,  and  common  Eafe. 
But  this  is  fo  far  from  fatisfying  our  Biilly-Critic,  that  it  only 
furnifhes  him  with  frefh  Matter  for  a  Quarrel.  He  is  much  oflended 
at  the  two  firA  Lines.  *'  —I  muft  here  renew  my  Complaints. 
»'  Take  Nature's  Path,  you  fay ;  and  what  am  I  to  underftand  by 
"  this  Nature  ?  Muft  I  take  the  reafonable  Nature  for  my  Guide  ? 
"  But,  according  to  you,  the  Philofophers  have  confulted  it  to  no 
«' purpofe.  Shall  I  give  myfelf  up  to  the  Animal  Nature  f  This 
"  would  foon  reduce  me  to  great  Diftrefles.  Encompafled  with 
"  Doubts  and  Difficulties,  what  have  I  left,  but  to  fuftcr 
"  myfelf  to  be  borne  away  by  Chance  or  Hazard  ?  And  to  con- 
"  elude,  that  the  Counfel  here  given  of  taking  Nature's  Path, 
"  comes  at  length  to  this,  to  march  fteddily  on  in  the  Footfteps  of 
"  Fatality  *." 

It  would  be  hard  indeed.  If  our  Commentator  could  not  find  the 
Road  to  Falali/)',  in  every  Step  the  Poet  takes.  But  here,  In  avoid- 
ing the  Horns  of  his  own  chimerical  Dilemma,  he  jumps  upon  it 
more  aukwardly  than  ufual.  The  Poet,  fays  he,  muft  either  mean 
the  Reafonable,  or  the  Animal  Nature.  Agreed.  He  could  not 
mean  the  Animal  Nature.  This  too  is  true.  Nor  the  Reafonable. 
Why  not  ?  Becaufe  it  flood  the  Philofophers  in  no  ftead.  What 
then  ?  Do  you  think  he  has  ever  the  worfe  Opinion  of  it  on  that 
Account  ?     They  could  not  poflibly  have  run  into  more  Miftakes 

*  Commcntaire,  p.  272,  173. 

about 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON     MAN.         135 

about  Happinefiy  than  you  have  about  the  Poet's  Meaning:  And 
yet,  for  all  that,  I  apprehend  he  will  think  never  the  worfe,  either 
of  Reafon  or  hitnfclf. 

But  what  is  indeed  Incredible,  after  Mr.  De  Croufaz  had  thus 
commented  the  two  firfl  Lines,  he  goes  on  with  his  Remarks  on 
t!ie  immediately  following.  Obvious  ho- Goods,  ^c.  in  thefe  Words: 
*'  See  Afr.  Pope  OKce  again  under  the  Nccejily  of  rejloring  Reafon 
"  to  its  Rights^ y  Prodigious  !  It  feenns  then,  after  all,  Mr.  Pope 
by  Nature's  Path,  did  indeed  mean  the  reafonabk  Nature.  For 
^\'e  now  fee  it  was  Mr.  De  Croufaz,  not  Mr.  Pope,  that  was  under 
the  NeCifity  of  reftorlng  Reafon  to  its  Rights. 

To  proceed,  the  Poet  having  expofed  the  tivofalfe  [pedes  of  Hap- 
pincf,  the  Philosophical  and  Popular,  and  denounced  the 
l^rue,  in  order  to  eflablifli  the  laf,  goes  on  to  a  Confutation  of  the 
Ivio  former, 

I.  He  firft  [from  1.  32  to  47]  confutes  the  Philosophical,  which, 
as  we  faid,  makes  Happinefs  a /'i3r//c«/rfr,  wox.  z  general  Goo^\  And 
this  two  Ways : 

1.  From  \\\%  grand  Principle,  That  God  aEis  by  general  Laws: 
The  Confcquence  of  which  is,  that  Happinefs,  which  fupports  the 
well-being  of  every  Syflem,  mufl  needs  be  Univerfii,  and  not 
Partial,  as  the  Philofophers  conceived: 

Remember,  Man  !  The  univerfal  Caufe 
Adls  not  by  partial,  but  by  general  Laws  ; 
And  makes,  what  Happlnefs  we  juflly  call, 
Subfift  not  in  the  Good  of  One,  but  All. 

2.  From  Fa5l,  That  Man  inftindively  concurs  with  this  Defig- 
nation  of  Providence,  to  make  Happinefs  univerfal,  by  his  having 
no  Delight  in  any  thing  uncommunicated  or  uncommunicable  : 

There's  not  a  Blefling  Individuals  find, 

But  fome  way  leans  and  hearkens  to  the  kind. 

*  Commentaire,  p.  281. 

No 


,3'S  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

No  Bandit  fierce,  no  Tyrant  mad  with  Pride, 
No  cavcrn'd  Hermit  rcfts  felf-fatisfied. 
Abflra>£t  what  others  feel,  what  others  think, 
All  Plcaforcs  ficken,  and  all  Glories  fink. 

II.  The  Poet,  in  the  fecond  Place  [from  1.  46  to  65J  confutes 
the  Popular  Error  concerning  Happinefs^  namely,  that  it  confifts 
in  Externals ;  which  he  does, 

I.  By  inquiring  into  the  Reafons  of  the  prefent  providential 
Ulfpofition  oi  external  Goods  :  A  Topic  of  Confutation  chofen  with 
the  greateft  Accuracy  and  Penetration.  For,  if  it  appears  they  were 
diftributed  in  the  Manner  we  fee  them,  for  Reafons  different  from 
the  Happ'mefs  of  Individuals^  it  is  abfurd  to  think  that  they  fhould 
i-nake  Part  of  that  Happlnefs. 

He  fhews  therefore,  that  Difparity  of  external  Pofleflions  among 
Men  was  fir  the  fake  of  Society^  i.  to  promote  the  Harmony  and 
Happinefs  of  a  Syjlem  : 

Order  is  Heaven's  firil:  Law  ;  and,  this  confeft, 
Some  are,  and  muft  be,  greater  tlian  the  reft. 
More  rich,  more  wife, — 

Becaufe  the  Want  of  external  Goods  in  fome,  and  the  Abun- 
dance in  others,  increafe  general  Harmony  in  the  Obliger  and 
Obliged. 

Yet  here  (fays  he)  mark  the  impartial  Wlfdom  of  Heaven  ;  this 
very  Inequality  of  ExJernals^  by  contributing  to  general  Harmony  and 
,  Order,  produceth  an  Eiuality  of  Happinefs  amongft  Individuals ; 
and,  for  that  very  renfon. 

Heaven  to  Mankind  impartial  we  confefs, 

If  all  are  equal  in  their  Happlnefs  : 

But  mutual  Wants  this  Happlnefs  Increafe, 

All  Nature's  Difference  keeps  all  Nature's  Peace, 

Condition,  Circumftance  is  not  the  Thing  : 

Blifs  is  the  fame,  in  Subjea,  or  in  King  ; 

In 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  137 

In  who  obtain  Defence,  or  who  defend  ; 
In  him  who  is,  or  him  who  finds,  a  Friend. 
Heaven  breathes  thro'  every  Member  of  the  Whole 
One  common  Bleffing  as  one  common  Soul. 

a.'ThisDifparlty  was  neceflary,  becaufe,  if  external  Goods  were 
equally  diftrlbuted,  they  would  occafion  perpetual  Difcord  amongft 
Men  all  erinal  in  Power : 

But  Fortune's  Gifts  If  each  alike  pofl'eft:, 

And  each  were  equal,  muft  not  all  conteft  ? 

From  hence  he  concludes,  That,  as  External  Goods  were  not  given 
for  the  Reward  of  Virtue,  but  for  many  different  Purpofes,  God 
could  not,  if  he  intended  Happinefs  for  all,  place  it  in  the  Enjoy- 
ment of  Externals : 

If  then  to  all  Men  Happinefs  was  meant, 

God  in  Externals  could  not  place  Content. 

2.  His  fecond  Argument  [from  1.  64  to  71]  againft  the  popular 
Error  of  Happinefs's  being  placed  in  Externals,  is,  that  the  Pojef- 
Jion  of  them  is  infeparably  attended  with  Fear^  the  JVant  of 
them  with  Hope ;  which  diredlly  crofTing  all  their  Pretenfions 
to  making  happy,  evidently  fhew  that  God  had  placed  Happinefs 
eljewhere  : 

Fortune  her  Gifts  may  varioufly  difpofe. 

And  thefe  be  happy  call'd,  unhappy  thofe ; 

But  Heaven's  juft  Balance  equal  will  appear, 

While  thofe  are  plac'd  in  Hope,  and  thefe  in  Fear  : 

Not  prefent  Good  or  111,,  the  Joy  or  Curfe, 

But  future  Views  of  better  or  of  worfe. 

Hence,  in  concluding  this  Argument,  he  takes  occafion  [from 
1.  70  to  75]  to  upbraid  the  defperate  Folly  and  Impiety  of  thofe, 
who,  in  fpite  of  God  and  Nature,  will  yet  attempt  to  place  Hap' 
pinefs  in  Externals. 

Vol.  VI.  T  O  Sons 


<>38  A     COMMENTARY     ON 

O  Sons  of  Earth  !  attempt  ye  ftill  to  rife, 
Hy  Mountains  pil'd  on  Mountains,  to  the  Skies  ? 
Heaven  iViII  with  Laiigliter  the  vain  Toil  furveys. 
And  buries  Madmen  in  the  Heaps  they  raife. 

I  mud  not  here  omit  to  obferve,  that  thcTranflator  (unconfcious 
of  all  this  fine  Reafoniiig  between  the  32d  and  75th  Lines,  where 
the  Poet  firft  confutes  tlie  rhi'ojophic  Errors  concerning  Happinefs, 
and  next  the  Popular)  hath  ftrangcly  jumbled  together  and  con- 
founded his  different  Arguments  on  thefe  two  ditferent  Heads.  But 
this  is  not  the  worft  ;  he  hatli  perverted  the  Poet's  Words  to  a  hor- 
rid and  fenfelefs  Fatali/rn,  foreign  to  the  Argument  in  hand,  and 
diredlly  contrary  to  Mr.  Pope''s  general  Principles. 

The  Poet  fays, 

Remember,   Man  !  the  univerfal  Caufe 
A6ls  not  by  partial,  but  by  general  Laws. 

His  Tranflator, 

— — Une  Loi  generale 
Determine  toiljours  la  Caufe  Principale. 

That  is,  a  general  Law  ever  determines  the  principal  Caufe ^  which 
is  the  very  Frf/f  of  the  ancient  Pagans,  who  fuppofed  that  Deftlny 
gave  Law  to  the  Father  of  Gods  end  Men. 

The  Poet  fays  again, 

Order  is  Heaven's  firft  Law  : 

That  is,  the  firjl  Law  made  by  God,  relates  to  Order,  which  Is  a 
beautiful  Allufion  to  the  Scripture  Hiftory  of  the  Creation,  when 
God  firft  appeafed  the  Diforders  of  Chaos,  and  feparated  the  Light 
from  the  Darknefs.     Let  us  now  hear  his  Tranflator  : 

L'Ordre,  cet  inflexible  et  grand  Legiflateur, 

Qui  des  decrcts  du  Cicl  eft  le  premier  Auteur  : 

Ordery 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON    MAN.         139 

Order,  that  inflexible  and  grand  Legijlator,  -who  is  the  firjl  Author 
of  the  Laws  of  Heaven.  A  Propofitlon  abominable  in  moft  Senfes, 
and  abfurd  in  all. 

But  now  what  fays  Mr.  De  Croufaz  to  this,  who  is  perpetually 
cryhig  out,  Fate  I  Fate  I  as  Men  in  Diftra£tion  call  out  Fire  ?  The 
Reader  will  be  furprized  to  hear  him  pafs  this  cool  Reflexion  on 
two  fo  obnoxious  Paflbges.  — "  77j/j  Order,  the  firfl:  Author  of. 
Laws,  prefents  us  "with  very  harp  Exprejftons,  and  bold  Ideas,  which 
Mr.  Pope  elfewbcrc  condenms  as  rafl)  and  unjujiifiahle  *.  But  this  is 
his  Moderation,  wiien  Mr.  U  Abbe  comes  under  his  Critique:  And 
we  know,  tiie  excellent  Profe  Tranflation  gave  him  the  Advantage 
of  knowing  whom  he  had  to  do  with. 

To  proceed,  the  Poet  having  thus  confuted  the  two  Errors  con- 
cerning H7^/)/«f/},  Philosophical  and  Popular,  and  proved  that 
true  Happiiiefs  was  neither  Solitary  and  Partial,  nor  yet  placed  in 
Externals  ;  goes  on  [from  1.  74  to  91]  to  fhew  in  what  k  doth  con- 
fifl:.  He  had  before  fald  in  general,  and  repeated  it,  that  Plappinefs 
Jay  in  common  to  the  whole  Species.  He  now  brings  us  better 
acquainted  with  it,  in  a  more  explicite  Information  of  its  Nature ; 
and  tells  us,  it  is  all  contained  in  Health,  Peace,  and  Competence  ; 
but  that  thefe  are  to  be  gained  only  by  Virtue,  namely,  by  Tem- 
perance, Innocence,   and  Indujiiy : 

Reafon's  whole  Pleafures,  all  the  Joys  of  Senfe, 

Lie  in  three  Words,  Health,  Peace,  and  Competence. 

But  Health  confifts  with  Temperance  alone, 

And  Peace,  O  Virtue  !  Peace  is  all  thy  own. 
The  firft  Line, 

Reafons  whole  Pleafures,  all  the  Joys  of  Senfe, 

is  the  moft  beautiful  Paraphrafis  for  Happinefs  ;  for  all  we  feel  of 
Good  is  by  Senfalion  and  Reflexion.  The  Tranflator,  who  feemed 
little  to  concern  himfelf  with  the  Poet's  Philofophy  or  Argument, 

*  Commenfaire,  p.  282. 

T  2  miftook 


,^,  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

miftook  this  Dcfcriptlon  of  Uappintfs  for  a  Defcrlption  of  tlie  in- 
ulUilual  and  fenjit'ive  Faculties,  oppofed  to  one  another ;  and  there- 
fore thus  tranflatcs  it : 

Lc  charmc  feduacur,  dont  s'enyvrant  les  Sens, 

Lcs  Plaifirs  de  I'Efprit  encore  plus  ravifl'ans. 
And  {o,  with  the  higheft  Abfurdity,  not  only  makes  the  Poet  con- 
ftltutc/«/«j/  Excejj'ci  a  Part  of  human  Happinefs,  but  likewife  the 
Piodua  of  Virtue. 

After  this,  we  fliall  no  longer  wonder  at  fuch  kind  of  Tranflations 
as  the  following  : 

Mr.  Pope  fays, 

And  Peace,  O  Virtue  \  Peace  Is  all  thy  own. 
The  Tranflator, 

Pour  vous,  O  Palx  du  Coeur,  digne  fille  des  Cleux, 

Vous  etcs  du  bonheur  le  gage  precieux. 

Confcious  Innocence,  fays  the  Poet,  is  the  only  Source  of  internal 
Peace,  and  kno^vn  Innocence  of  external ;  therefore  Peace  is  the  fole 
Iflue  of  Virtue  ;  or,  in  his  own  emphatic  Words,  Peace  is  all  tly 
cwn  ;  a  conclufive  Obfervatlon  in  his  Argument.  0  Peace,  fays  the 
Tranflator,  thou  art  the  precious  Pledge  of  Happinefs ;  an  Obferva- 
tlon, which  concludes  no  more  than  that  the  Tranflator  did  not 
\inderfl:and  the  Argument,  which  ftands  thus : — Is  Happinefs 
riglitly  placed  in  Externals  ?  No,  for  it  confifls  in  Health,  Peace, 
and  Competence.  Health  and  Competence  are  the  Produd  of  Tem- 
perance and  Indufliry  ;   and  Peace,  of  perfedl  Innocence. 

But  hitherto,  the  Poet  hath  only  confidered  Health  and  Peace  : 
But  Health  confifts  with  Temperance  alone, 
And  Peace,  O  Virtue  !  Peace  is  all  thy  own. 

One  Head  yet  remains  to  be  fpoken  to,  namely,  Competence;.  In 
the  Purfuit  of  Health  and  Peace  there  is  no  Danger  of  running 
into  Kxcefs.     But  the  Cafe  is  different  with  regard   to  Competence. 

Here, 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON     MAN.  141 

Here,  IVealth  and  4ffluence  would  be  too  apt  to  be  miftakcn  for  it, 
in  Mens  paflionate  Purl'olt  of  external  Goods.  To  obviate  this  Mif- 
take  therefore,  the  Poet  Ihews,  that,  as  exorbitant  IVealth  adds 
nothing  to  the  Happinefs  arifing  from  a  Competence,  fo,  as  it  is 
generally  ill  gotten,  it  is  attended  with  Circumftances  that  weaken 
another  Fart  of  this  triple  Cord,  namely,  Peace: 

The  Good  or  Bad  the  Gifts  of  Fortune  gain  ; 

But  thefe  lefs  tafte  them  as  they  worfe  obtain. 

Say,  in  Purfuit  of  Profit  or  Delight, 

Who  rifque  the  moft,  that  take  wrong  Means  or  right  ? 

Of  Vice  or  Virtue,  whether  bleft  or  curft, 

Wliich  meets  Contempt,  or  which  Compaflion  firfl  ? 

Count  all  th'Advantage  profperous  Vice  attains, 

'Tis  but  what  Virtue  flies  from,  and  difdains  ; 

And  grant  the  Bad  what  Happinefs  they  would, 

One  they  muft  want,  which  is,  to  pafs  for  good. 

Here  Mr.  De  C^oufazs  Remarks  are  indeed  very  extraordinary — 
**  To  whom  (fays  he)  are  thefe  Interrogatories  addrefled  ? — If  you 
"  refer  yourfelf  to  the  Judgment  of  a  Troop  of  young  Libertines, 
"  fuch  as  are  to  be  found  in  great  Cities,  and  in  Armies,  you  will 
"  certainly  not  have  the  Laughers  on  your  Side  *,"  &c.  What: 
then  ?  U Reafon  require  they  fhould,  is  not  that  fufFicient  for  the 
Poet's  Purpofe,  in  a  Difcourfe  where  Reafon  is  continually  appealed 
to,  in  a  Controverfy  between  him  and  them  ?  But  our  Logician's 
Perverfity  is  without  Example.  Till  now,  his  Quarrel  with  the 
Poet  was,  that  his  Arguments  flattered  the  corrupt  Sentiments  of 
Libertinifm.  At  prefent  he  is  as  captious  with  him  for  their  op- 
pofing  thofe  Sentiments.  Does  not  this  look  as  if  he  were  refolved 
to  approve  of  nothing  Mr.  Pope  could  fay  ? 

Our  Author  having  thus  largely  confuted  theMiftake  of  Happi' 
nejs's  confji'ing  in  Externals,  proceeds  to  expofe  the  terrible  Con- 
SEQiJENCES  of  fuch  an  Opinion,  on  the  Sentiments  and  Praiflice  of 

*  Commentaire,  p.  289,  290. 

all 


,  ^,  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    ON 

all  Sorts  or  Men,  making  the  Dissolute  impious  and  atheiftical, 
th.-  RELIGIOUS  uncharitable  and  intolerant,  and  the  Good  reftlefs 
and  dilcontent.  For  when  it  is  once  taken  for  granted,  that  Hafi^ 
pinffi  coiiftjh  in  Externals,  it  is  immediately  feen  that  HI  Men  are 
oltcn  more  happy  than  good;  which  fets  all  Conditions  on  objeftlng 
to  the  Ways  of  Providence,  and  fome  even  on  radily  attempting  to 
rcaify  its  Difpcnfations,  though  by  the  Violation  of  Law,  divine 
and  iiuman.  Now  this  being  the  moft  momentous  Part  of  the 
Subjea  under  Confidcration,  is  defervedly  treated  mod  at  large. 
And  here  it  will  be  proper  to  take  notice  of  the  exquifite  Art  of  the 
Poet,  in  making  this  Confutation  ferve,  at  the  fame  time,  for  a  full 
Solution  of  all  Obje£J:ion5  which  might  be  made  to  his  main  Propo- 
rtion, ihjt  Happineji  confijls  not  in  Externals. 

1.  He  begins,  firft  of  all,  with  the  Atheistical  Complainersy 
and  purfues  their  Impiety  [from  1.  90  to  1 29]  with  all  the  Vengeance 
of  his  Eloquence. 

Oh  blind  to  Truth,  and  God's  whole  Scheme  below  ! 
Who  hn(y  Bills  to  Vice,  to  Virtue  Woe: 
Who  fees  and  follows  that  great  Scheme  the  befl, 
Ikfl;  knows  the  Bleffing,  and  will  mofl:  be  bleft. 

lie  expofes  their  Folly,  even  on  their  own  Notions  of  external 
Go'xis. 

I.  By  Examples  [from  line  96  to  109]  where  he  (hews  Jirjl, 
that,  if  good  Men  have  been  untimely  cut  off,  this  is  not  to  be 
afcribed  to  their  Virtues,  but  to  a  Contempt  of  Life  that  hurried 
them  into  Dangers.  Secondly,  That  if  they  will  ftiil  perfift  in 
afcribing  untimely  Death  to  Virtue,  they  muft  needs,  on  the  fame 
Principle,  likewife  afcribe  long  Life  to  it.  Confequently  as  the 
Argument,  \wFa£i^  concludes  both  ways,  In  Logic,  It  concludes 
neither. 

But  Fools  the  Good  alone  unhappy  call, 
From  Ills  or  Accidents  that  chance  to  all. 

Say, 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY     ON     MAN.  143 

Say,  was  it  Virtue,   more  thougli  Heaven  ne'er  gave, 
Lamented  D^gby  !   fimk  thee  to  the  Cirave  ? 
Tell  me,  if  Virtue  made  the  Son  expire. 
Why  full  of  Days  and  Honour  lives  the  Sire  ? 
Why  drew  Marje///es'  good  Bifliop  purer  Breath, 
When  Nature  ficken'd,  and  each  Gale  was  Death  ? 
Or  why  fo  long  (in  I/ife  if  long  can  be) 
Lent  Heaven  a  Parent  to  the  Poor,  and  mc  ? 

This  laft  Inftance  of  tlie  Poet's  Illuflration  of  the  Ways  of  Pio- 
vidcnce,  the  Reader  fees,  has  a  peculiar  Elegance  ;  where  a  Tribute 
of  Piety  to  a  Parent  is  paid  in  a  Return  of  Thanks  to  [Lent  Heaven 
a  Parent,  &c.]  and  made  fubfervient  of  [Or  tvhy  fo  long — ]  his 
Vi'ndication  of,  the  Great  Father  of  all  'Things. 

2.  He  expofes  their  Folly  [from  line  ic8  to  129]  by  Conf dera- 
tions drawn  from  the  Syfiem  of  Nature  ;  and  thefe,  two-fold,  NatU' 
ral  and  Moral.  You  accufe  God,  fays  the  Poet,  becaufe  the  good 
Man  is  fubjedl  to  Natural  and  Moral  Evil :  Let  us  fee  whence  thefe 
proceed.  Natural  Evil  is  the  neceflary  Confequence  of  a  material 
World  fo  conftituted  '.  But  that  this  Conftitution  was  hejf,  we  have 
proved  in  the  firft  EpKlle.  Moral  Evil  arifeth  from  the  depraved 
Will  of  Man  :  Therefore  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  from 
God. 

What  m.kes  all  Phyfical  or  Moral  111  1 
There  deviates  Nature,  and  here  wanders  Will. 
God  fends  not  111,  if  rightly  underfhood  ; 
Or  partial  III  is  univerfal  Good  ; 
Or  Chance  admits,  or  Nature  lets  it  fall. 
Short,  and  but  rare,   till  Man  improv'd  it  all. 

But  you  fiy  (adds  the  Poet,  to  thefe  impious  Complainers)  that 
though  it  be  fit  Man  Ihould  futfcr  the  Miferies  which  he  brings 
upon  himfelf,  by  the  Commilfion  of  moral  Evil,  yet  it  feems  to  be 
unfit  his  innocent  Pofterity  fliould  bear  a  Share  of  them.  To  this, 
fays  he,  I  reply. 

We 


n4  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

\\\- jaft  as  wilVly  mighfof  Heaven  complain 
That  righteous  Abel  was  deftroy'd  by  Cain, 
As  tint  the  virtuous  Sou  is  ill  at  eafe, 
When  his  lewd  Father  gave  the  dire  Dlfeafe. 

But  vou  will  ftill  fay  (continues  the  Poet)  why  does  not  God 
either  prevent,  or  immediately  repair  thefe  Evils  ?  You  may  as 
well  alk,  why  he  doth  not  work  continual  Miracles,  and  every 
Moment  reverfe  the  eftablifhed  Laws  of  Nature  : 

Shall  burning  Mtna,  if  a  Sage  requires, 

Forget  to  thunder,  and  recal  her  Fires  ? 

On  Air  or  Sea  new  Motions  be  impreft, 

O  blamelefs  Bethel',   to  relieve  thy  Breafl:  ? 

When  the  loofe  Mountain  trembles  from  on  high. 

Shall  Gravitation  ceafe,  if  you  go  by  ? 

Or,  fome  old  Temple  nodding  to  its  Fall, 

For  Chartres    Head  referve  the  hanging  Wall  ? 
This  is  the  Force  of  the   Poet's  Reafoning,  and   thefe  the  Men 
to  whom   he  addrefles   It,  namely,  the  Libertine  Cavillers   againil 
Providence. 

II.  But  now,  fo  unhappy  is  the  Condition  of  our  corrupt  Nature, 
that  thefe  are  not  the  only  Complalners.  Rellglousyi^w  are  but  too 
apt,  if  not  to  j^^^^  o«/,  yet  fometimes  fecretly  to  murmur  agalnft 
Providence,  and  fay,  Its  IVays  are  not  equal :  Efpecially  thofe  more 
inordinately  devoted  to  a  Se£l  or  Party  are  fcandalized,  that  the 
Just  (for  fuch  they  efteem  themfelves)  who  are  to  judge  the  Worlds 
have  no  better  Portion  In  their  own  Inheritance.  The  Poet  therefore 
now  leaves  thofe  more  projllgate  Complalners,  and  turns  [from  1. 1 28 
to  1 47]  to  the  Religious,  in  thefe  Words  : 

But  All!  this  World  (fo  fitted  for  the  Knave) 

Contents  us  not.     A  better  fliall  we  have  ? 

A  Klns^dom  of  the  Jujl  then  let  it  be. 

But  firft  confider  how  thofe  Jufl  agree. 

As 


Mr.   r o p e's  essay   on  man. 


'45 


As  the  more  impious  Complainers  wanted  external  Goods  to  be 
the  Reward  of  Virtue  for  the  moral  Man  ;  fo  thefc  want  them  for 
the  Pious,  m  order  to  have  a  Kingdom  of  the  J'-^ft.  To  this  the 
Poet  holds  it  fufficient  to  anfwer  :  Pray,  Gentlemen,  firft  agree 
amongft  youfelves,  who  thoje  Juft  are.     We  allow, 

The  Good  muil:  merit  God's  peculiar  Care, 

But  who  but  God  can  tell  us  who  they  are  ? 

One  thinks  on  Cahin  Heaven's  own  Spirit  fell, 

Another  deems  hitn  Inftrument  of  Hell  : 

If  Cahin  feels  Heaven's  Blefling  or  its  Rod, 

This  cries,  There  is,  and  that,  There  is  no  God. 

As  this  is  the  Cafe,  he  even  bids  them  reft  fatibfied  ;  remember 
his  fundamental  Principle,  Thai  whatever  is,  is  right  ;  and  content 
themfelves  (as  their  Religion  teaches  them  to  profefs  a  more  than 
ordinary  Submiffion  to  the  Ways  of  Providence)  with  that  com- 
mon Anfwer  which  he  with  fo  much  Reafon  and  Piety  gives  to 
every  Kind  of  Complainer. 

However,  though  there  be  yet  no  Kingdom  of  the  Jt//^,  there  is 
ftill  no  Kingdom   of  the  UnjuJ}.     That  both  the  Virtuous  and   the 
Vicious,  whatfoever  becomes  of  thofe  whom  every  Se£t  calls  the 
Faithful,  have  their  Shares  in  external  Goods  ;  and,  what  is  more, 
the  Virtuous  have  infinitely  the  moft  Enjoyment  in  them  : 
— This  World,  'tis  true. 
Was  made  for  defar,  but  for  Titus  too  : 
And  which  more  bliji?   who  chain'd  his  Country,  fay, 
Or  he  whofe  Virtue  figh'd  to  lofe  a  Day  ? 

I  have  been  the  more  careful  to  explain  this  laft  Argument,  and 
to  fhew  againft  whom  it  is  direcSted,  becaufe  much  depends  upon  it 
for  the  llluftration  of  the  Senfe,  and  the  juft  Defence  of  the  Poet. 
For  if  we  fuppofe  him  ftill  addrefiing  himfelf  to  thofe  impious 
Complainers,  confuted  in  tiie  thirty-eight  preceding  Lines,  wc 
fhould  make  him  guilty  of  a  Pcirallogifm  m  the  Argument  about  the 

Vol.  VI.  U  Juji, 


146  A     COMMENTARY     ON 

J//^,  and  in  the  Ilkiftidtion  of  it  by  the  Cafe  of  Cahin.  For  then 
the  Libertines  allc,  Wliy  the  Jujl,  that  is,  the  mora/ Mjh,  is  not 
rewarded  ?  The  AiiCwcr  is,  That  none  but  God  can  ttll  who  the 
Ju/l,  that  is,  the  tnify  faithful  Man,  is.  Where  the  terni  is 
changfd,  in  order  to  fiipport  the  Argument ;  for  about  the  truly 
Moiiii  Mm  \\\c\c  \s  noDifpute;  about  the  truly  Faithjul,  or  the 
Orthodox,  a  great  deal.  But  take  the  Poet  right,  as  arguing  here 
aqainft  n'//j/c«/  Complainers,  and  the  Reafoiiing  is  ftria:  and  logical. 
They  afk,  Why  the  truly  Faithful  are  not  rewardetl  ?  He  an- 
fwcrs,  They  may  be  for  ought  you  know,  for  none  but  God  can 
tell  who  they  are.  Mr.  De  Croufizs  Objeftlons  to  this  Reafoning 
receive  all  their  Force  from  that  wrong  Suppoiition,  That  the  Poet 
was  here  arguing  againfl:  Libertine  Complainers ;  and  confequently 
they  have  no  Force  at  all. 

III.  The  Poet  having  difpatched  tliefe  two  Species  of  Complain- 
ers, comes  now  to  the  third  and  ftill  more  pardonable  Sort,  the 
difcontented  good  Men,  who  lament  only,  that  Virtue  farves,  while 
Vice  rials.  To  thefe  the  Poet  replies  [from  I.  146  to  i  j;5]  that  ad- 
mit tiiis  to  be  the  Cafe,  yet  they  have  no  Reafon  to  complain, 
either  of  the  good  Man's  Lot  in  particular,  or  of  the  Difpenfation  of 
Providence  in  general.  Not  of  the  farmer,  becaufe  Happinefs,  the 
Reward  of  Virtue,  confifls  not  in  Externals  ;  nor  of  the  latter, 
becaufe  ill  Men  may  gain  Wealth  by  commendable  Induftry,  good 
Men  want  Neccfiaries  through  Lidolenceor  bad  Conduft. 

But  as  modefl  as  this  Complaint  feems  at  firft  View,  the  Poet 
next  fhews  [from  1.  154  to  165]  that  it  is  founded  on  a  Principle  of 
the  higheft  Extravagance,  which  will  never  let  the  difcontented 
good  Man  reft,  till  he  becomes  as  vain  and  foolifli  in  his  Imagina- 
tions as  the  very  worfl  fort  of  Complainers.  For  that  when  once 
he  begins  to  think  he  wants  what  is  his  due,  he  will  never  know 
where  to  flop,  while  God  has  any  thing  to  give. 

But  this  is  not  all;  he  proves  next  [from  1.  164  to  175]  that 
th&fe  Demands  are  not  only  tmrcafonable,  but  in  the  highefl  degree 

abjurd 


Mr.    POPE'S     ESSAY    ON    MAN;        147 

ahfurd  likewife.     For  that  thofe  very  Gcoth,  if  granted,  would  be 
the  Dejiru&ion  oi  xXi^X.  Virtue  for  which  they  are  demanded  as  a  Re- 
ivard.     He  concludes  therefore  on  the  whole,  that, 
What  nothing  earthly  gives,  or  can  deftroy, 
The  Soul's  calm  Sunfhine,  and  the  heart-felt  Joy, 
Is  Virtue's  Prize. — 

But  the  Poet  now  enters  more  at  large  upon  the  Matter  :  And 
flill  continuing  his  Difcourfe  to  this  third  Sort  of  Complainers 
(whom  he  indulges  as  much  more  pardonable  than  the  Jirjl  or  fc' 
cojid,  in  re^Elifying  all  their  Doubts  and  Miftakes)  proves  both  from  . 
Reajon  and  Example,  how  unable  any  of  thofe  tilings  are,  which 
the  World  mort:  admires,  to  make  a  good  Man  happy.  For,  as  to 
tlie  philojophic  Miftakes  concerning  Happinefs,  there  being  little 
Danger  of  their  making  a  general  Impreflion,  the  Poet,  after  a 
fliort  Confutation,  had  difmilled  them  all  together.  But  external 
Goods  are  thofe  Syrens,  which  fo  bewitch  the  World  with  Dreams 
of  Happinefs,  that  of  all  Things  the  mod  difficult  is,  to  awaken  it 
out  of  its  Delufions  J  though,  as  he  proves,  in  an  exact  Review  of 
the  moft  Pretending,  they  diflionour  bad  Men,  and  add  no  Luftre 
to  the  Good.  That  it  is  only  this  third  and  leafl:  criminal  Sort  of 
Complainers,  againft  which  the  remaining  Part  of  the  Difcourfe  Is' 
levelled,  appears  from  the  Poet's  fo  frequently  addrefling  himfelf, 
while  he  inforces  his  Arguments  in  Behalf  of  Providence,  from 
henceforward  to  his  Friend. 

I.  He  begins  therefore  [from  line  174  to  I95]  with  confidering 
Riches,  i.  He  examines,  firfl,  what  there  is  of  real  Value  in 
them,  and  fhews,  they  can  give  the  good  Man  only  that  very  Con- 
tentment he  had  before,  or,  at  moft,  but  burthen  him  with  aTruft 
to  be  difpenfed  for  the  Benefit  of  others: 

For  Riches,  can  they  give  but  to  the  Juft 

His  own  Contentment,  or  another's  Triiji  ? 

Since  the  good  Man  efleems  all,  befide  what  is  fufficient  to  fupply 
U  2  him 


,  ^3  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

him  with  t!ie  Convenieiicies  of  Life,  as  entrufled  to  him  by  Provi- 
dence, for  the  Supplial  of  others  Necefllties. 

It  is  true,  he  tells  us  elfewhere,  that  another  Sort  of  good  Men 
a:c  of  a  different  Opinion  : 

The  grave  Sir  Gilbert  holds  it  for  a  Role, 
That  every  Man  in  Want  is  Knave  or  Fool: 
God  cannot  love  (fliys  Blunt,  with  lifted  Eyes) 
Ihe  Wretch  he  Jiarves — and  pioufly  denies. 

Of  the  Ufe  of  Riches,  I.  103. 

And  thefe  are  they  to  whom  he  here  alludes,  where  he  fays, 
O  Fool !  to  think  God  hates  the  worthy  Mind, 
Tlie  Lover,  and  the  Love,  of  Human-kind, 
Whofe  Life  is  healthful,  and  whofe  Confcience  clear, 
Becaufe  he  wants  a  thoufand  Pounds  a  Year  ! 

The  Poet  next  examines  the  imaginary  Value  of  Riches,  as  the 
Fountain  of  Honour.  For  Ills  Adverfaries  Objedion  flands  thus  : — 
As  Honour  is  the  genuine  Claim  of  Virtue,  and  Shame  the  jufl: 
Retiibotion  of  Vice  ;  and  as  Honour,  in  their  Opinion,  follows 
Riches,  and  Shame  Poverty  ;  therefore  the  ^g'&c^  il/.,«  fliould  ht  rich. 
He  tells  them  In  this  they  are  much  miftaken  : 

Honour  and  Shame  from  no  Condition  rife; 

Adt  well  your  Part,  there  all  the  Honour  lies. 

What  Power  then  has  Fortune  over  the  Man  ?  None  at  all. 
For,  as  her  Favours  can  confer  neither  Worth  nor  Wifdom ;  fo 
neither  can  her  Dfpleafure  cure  him  of  any  of  his  Follies.  On  his 
Garb  indeed  fhe  has  fome  little  Influence;  but  his  Heart  ftlll  re- 
mains the  fame: 

Fortune  In  Men  has  fome  fmall  Difference  made, 
Ont flaunts  in  Rags,  ow^  flutters  in  Brocade. 

II.  Then,  as  to  Nobility,  by  Creation  or  Birth,  this  too  he 
flicws  [from  1.  195  to  207]  is,  In  itfelf,  as  devoid  of  all  real  Worth 


Mr.     P  O  P  E'S     essay     ON    MAN.         149 

as  the  reft :  Becnufe,  in  theftjl  Cafe  the  Title  is  generally  gained 

by  noMeiit  at  all  : 

Stuck  o'er  with  Titles,  and  hung  round  with  Strings, 
That  thou  may'fl:  be  by  Kings,  or  Whores  of  Kings. 

In  the  fecond,  by  the  Merit  of  the  firA  Founder  of  the  Fanaily, 
which  will  always,  when  refleded  on,  be  rather  the  Subje*£t  of 
- Moriijicaiicin  than  Glory: 

Go!   if  your  ancient,   but  ignoble,  Blood 

Has  crept  through  Scoundrels  ever  fince  the  Flood, 

Go  !  and  pretend  your  Family  is  young  ; 

Nor  own  your  Fathers  have  been  Fools  fo  long. 

III.  The  Poet  in  the  next  Place  [from  1.  206  to  227]  unmafks 
the  falfe  Pretences  of  Greatness,  whereby  it  is  feen  that  the  Hero 
and  Politician  (the  two  Charaders  which  would  monopolize  that 
Quality)  afcer  all  their  Buftle,  effe6l  only  this,  if  they  want  Virtue, 
that  the  one  proves  himfelf  z  Fool,  and  the  other  z  Knave:  And 
Virtue  they  but  too  generally  ^'ant.  The  Art  of  Hercifm  being  un- 
dcrftood  to  eonfift  in  Ravage  and  Defclalion:  and  the  yirt  of  Poli- 
tics, in  Circumvention.     Now 

— Grant  that  thofe  can  conquer,  thefe  can  cheat, 

'Tis  Phrafe  abfurd  to  call  a  Villain,  Great  : 

Who  wickedly  is  wife,  or  madly  brave, 

Is  but  the  more  a  Fool,  the  more  a  Knave. 
It   is   not  Succi'fs  therefore  that   conftitutes   true  Grcatncfs  ;  but 
the  End  aimed  at;  and  the  Means  which  are  employed:  And  if  thefe 
be  right.  Glory  will  be  the  Reward,  whatever  be  the  IJfue  : 

Who  noble  Ends  by  noble  Means  obtains, 

Or  failing,  fmiles  in  Exile  or  in  Chains, 

Like  good  Aurelius  let  him  reign,  or  bleed 

Like  Socrates,  that  Man  is  great  indeed. 

IV.  With  regard  to  Fame,  that  flill  more  fantaflic  Bkfling,  he 
{hews  [from  1.  226  to  249]  that  all  of  it,  befidcs  what   wc  hear 

ourfclvcs. 


,3o  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

mirfelvc5,  is  merely  nothing;  and  tl.at  even  of  this  fmall  Portion, 
no  more  of  it  gives  the  Poffeflbr  a  real  Satisfadion,  than  what  is  the 
Fruit  of  Virtue. 

All  Fame  is  foreign,  but  of  true  Defert, 

Plays  round  the  Head,  but  conaes  not  near  the  Heart. 
Thus  he  (liews,  that  Honour,  Nobility,  Greatnefs,  Glory,  (o  far  as 
they  have  any  thing  real  and  fubftantial,  that  is,  fo  hr  as  they 
contribute  to  the  Happinefs  of  the  Poffeffor,  are  the  fole  Iffue  of 
Virtue,  and  that  neither  Riches,  Courts,  Armies,  nor  the  Populace, 
are  capable  of  conferring  them. 

V.  But  laftly,  the  Poet  proves  [from  1.  248  to  259]  that  as  no 
external  Goods  can  make  Man  happy,  fo  neither  is  it  in  the 
Power  of  all  internal  For,  that  even  Superior  Parts  bring 
no  more  real  Happinefs  to  the  Pofldflbr,  than  the  reft,  nay,  put 
him  into  a  worfe  Condition;  for  that  the  Qulcknefs  of  Appre- 
henfion,  and  Depth  of  Penetration,  do  but  fliarpen  the  Miferies  of 
Life  : 

In  Parts  fuperlor,  what  Advantage  lies  ? 

Tell  (for  You  can)  what  is  it  to  be  wife  ? 

'TIs  but  to  knovvr  how  little  can  be  known  ; 

To  fee  all  others  Faults,  and;feel  our  own,  &c. 

Painful  Pre-eminence!  yourfelf  to  view 

Above  Life's  Wcaknefs,  audits  Comforts  too. 

This  to  his  Friend — nor  does  It  at  all  contradift  what  he  had 
fakl  to  him  concerning  Happinefs  in  the  Beginning  of  the  Epiftle  : 
'TIs  never  to  be  bought,  but  always  free. 
And  fled  from  Monarchs,  iS/.  fohn !  dwells  with  thee. 

For  he  is  now  proving  that  nothing  either  external  to  Man,  or 
what  Is  not  in  his  own  Power,  and  of  his  own  Acquirement,  can 
make  him  happy  here.  The  moft  plaufible  Rival  of  Firiue  Is  Kmiv- 
Icdge.     Yet  even  this,  he  fays,  is  fo  far  from  giving  any  degree  of 

real 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.         151 

real  Happinefs,  that  it  deprives  Men  of  thofe  common  Comforts  of 
Life,  wliich  aie  a  kind  of  Support  to  us  under  the  Want  of  Hap- 
p'lnejs:  Such  as  tlie  more  innocent  of  thofe  'Delufions  which  he 
fpeaks  of  in  the  fecond  Epiftle,  where  he  l^\ys, 

Till  tlien.   Opinion  gilds  with  varying  Ravs 

Thofe  painted  Clouds,  that  beautify  our  Days,  Cfr.     1.  265. 

Now  Knovukdge  (as  is  here  fiid)  dejlroys  all  thofe  Comforts,  by 
{oXimgyi^w  above  hife's  Weaknejj'es :  So  that  in  him,  who  tliinks 
to  attain  Happinefs  by  Knowledge,  the  Fable  is  reverfed,  and  in  a 
prepofterous  Attempt  to  gain  the  Subjiance,  he  lofes  even  the  Sha- 
dow. This  I  take  to  be  the  true  Senfe  of  tliis  fine  Stroke  of  Satire, 
on- the  wrong  Purfuits  after  Happhiefs, 

Having  thus  proved  how  empty  and  unfatisfliftory  all  thefe 
Greateft  external  Goods  are,  from  an  Examination  of  their  Na- 
ture, the  Poet  proceeds  to  ftrengthen  his  Argument  [from  1.  258  to 
299]  by  thefe  two  farther  Confiderations, 

1  n-,  That  the  Acquirement  of  thefe  Goods  is  made  with  the  Lofs 
of  one  another  ;  or  of  greater,  either  as  inconfiftent  with  them,  or 
as  fpent  in  attaining  them  : 

How  much  of  other  each  is  fure  to  coH? 

How  each  for  other  oft  is  wholly  loft  ? 

How  inconfiftent  greater  Goods  with  thefe  ? 

How  fometimes  Life  is  rifqu'd,  and  always  Eafe  ? 

2dly,  That  the  Poffeflbrs  of  each  of  thefe  Goods  are  generally  fuch 
as  are  fo  far  from  railing  Envy  in  a  good  Man,  that  he  would  rc- 
fufe  to  take  their  Perfons,  though  accompanied  with  their  Poflef- 
fions.     And  this  the  Poet  illuftrates  by  Examples : 

Think,  and  If  ftill  the  Things  thy  Envy  call, 

Say,  would'fl  thou  be  the  Man  to  whom  they  fall  ?  &c. 


,^,  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     O  N 

3tllv,  Nny,  that  even  the  PofTeffion  of  them  all  together, 
Nvhc-reiheyhave  excluded  Virtue,  only  terminates  in  more  enor- 
mous Milery  : 

If  all,  united,  thy  Ambition  call. 

From  ancient  Story  learn  to  fcorn  them  all. 

There,  in  the  Rich,  the  Honour  d,  Fanid,  and  Great, 

See  the  falfe  Scale  of  Happinefs  complete  ! 

Mark  by  what  wretched  Steps  their  Glory  grows, 

From  Dirt  and  Sea-weed,  as  proud  Fenke  rofe,  Gfc. 

Having  thus  at  length  fhewn,  that  Happinefs  confifts  neither  in 
ay\y  external  Goods,  nor  in  <?// kinds  of  hiternal,  that  is,  fuch  of  them 
as  are  not  of  our  own  Acquirement,  he  concludes  [from.  1.  298  to 
301]  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  Virtue  alone  : 

Know  then  this  Truth  (enough  for  Man  to  know) 

Virtue  alone  is  Happinefs  below. 

Which  the  Tranflator  turns  thus: 

Appren  done  qu'il  n'efl:  point  icy  bas  de  Bonheur 
Si  la  Vertu.  nc  regie  et  VEJprlt,  et  le  Cccur. 

i.  e.  Learn  therefore  that  there  is  no  Happinefs  here  below,  if  Virtue 
dies  not  regulate  the  Heart  and  the  Under Jianding,  which  deftroys  the 
whole  Force  of  the  Poet's  Conclufion.  He  had  proved,  that  Hap- 
pinefs confifts  neither  in  external  Goods,  as  the  Vulgar  Imagined,  nor 
yet  in  the  vifionary  Purfuits  of  the  Philofcpbers :  He  therefore  con- 
cludes that  it  confifts  in  Virtue  alone.  His  Tranflator  fays, 
•without  Virtue  there  can  be  no  Happinefs.  And  fo  fiy  the  Men  againft 
whom  the  Poet  is  here  arguing.  For  though  they  fuppofed  external 
Goods  requifite  to  Happinefs,  yet  it  was,  when  enjoyed  according 
to  tlie  Rules  of  Virtue.     Mr.  Pope  fays. 

Virtue  alone  is  Happinefs  below, 
and  fo  ouglit  his  Tranflator  to  have  faid  after  him. 

Hitherto 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.         15- 

Hitherto  the  Poet  had  proved,  negatively,  that  Happincjs 
conjifts  m  Virtue,  by  fhewing  it  confifted  not  in  any  other  thing.  He 
now  [from  1.  300  to  317]  proves  the  fame  positively,  by  an 
Enumeration  of  its  ^talities,  all  naturally  adapted  to  give,  and  to 
increafe  human  Happinefs :  As  its  Conjiancy,  Capacity,  Vigour, 
Efficacy,  A5livily,  Moderation,  and  Self-fufficiency  : 

The  only  Point  where  human  Blifs  ftands  ftill, 

And  taftes  the  Good,  without  the  Fall  to  III ; 

Without  Satiety,  tho'  e'er  fo  blefs'd, 

And  but  more  relifli'd,  as  the  more  diftrefs'd  : 

Good,  from  each  Objed,  from  each  Place,  acquir'd, 

For  ever  exercis'd,  yet  never  tir'd  ; 

Never  elated,  while  one  Man's  opprefs'd  ; 

Never  deje(£\;ed,  while  another's  blefs'd  ; 

And  where  no  Wants,  no  Wifhes  can  remain, 

Since,  but  to  wi(h  more  Virtue,  is  to  gain. 

Having  thus  proved  that  Happine/s  is  indeed  placed  in  Virtue, 
he  proves  next  [from  1.  316  to  319]  that  it  is  rightly  placed 
there :  For,  that  then,  and  then  only,  all  may  partake  of  it,  and 
All  be  capable  of  relifliing  it : 

See  the  fole  Blifs  Heaven  could  on  h-L-L  beftow. 
Which  who  but  feels  can  tafte,  but  thinks  can  know. 

The  Poet  then  obferves,  with  fome  Indignation,  [from  I.  318  to 
331]  that  as  eafy  and  as  evident  as  this  Truth  was,  yet  Riches 
zwA  falfe  Philofophy  had  fo  blinded  the  Perception,  even  oi  improved 
Minds,  that  the  Pofleflbrs  of  the  ^r/?  placed  Happinefs  in  Externals 
unfuitnble  to  Man's  Nature  ;  and  the  Followers  of  the  latter  in  re- 
fined Vtjions,  unfuitable  to  his  Situation :  While  the  fimple-minded 
Man,  with  Nature  only  for  his  Guide,  found  plainly  in  what  it 
(hould  be  placed  : 

Yet  poor  with  Fortune,  and  with  Learning  blind. 
The  Bad  muft  mlfs,  the  Good  untaught  will  find ; 
Vol.  VI.  X  Slave 


:^^  A     COM  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y     ON 

Slave  ro  no  Se£l,  who  takes  no  private  Road, 

But  /oois  thro'  KiUure  up  to  Knture's  Go:l 

Pmfues  that  Chain,  wljich  links  th'  immenfe  Defign, 

Joins  Heaven  and  Eartli,  and  iMortnl  and  Divine. 

Sees  that  no  Being  any  Blils  can  know. 

But  touches  Ibme  above,  and  feme  below  ; 

Learns,  from  this  Union  of  the  rifing  ir/jo/e, 

The  firft  laft  Purpofe  of  the  human  Soul  ; 

And  knows  where  Faith,  Law,  Morals,  all  began, 

All  end,  in  Love  of  God,  and  Love  of  Man. 
To  this  Mr.  Di'  Crou/az, — "  I  made  my  Remarks  as  I  went 
"  along,  in  reading  the  Poem  of  Mr.  Da  Ref/iel ;  and,  in  Propor- 
"  tion  as  I  advanced  in  it,  I  have  had  the  moft  agreeable  Satisfac- 
"  lion  to  find,  that  my  Commentaries  have  been  too  hafl-y  and  im- 
•*  mature  on  this  Poem  ;  in  fo  clear  a  Light  has  the  illnftrious 
*«  yUl>e  placed  thofe  Truths,  which  the  Profe  Tranflator  had  deli- 
"  vercd  witii  much  lefs  Precifenefs.  In  this  Tranflation  1  evi- 
*'  dently  meet  with  the  facred  Terms  oi  Faith^  Hope,  and  Charity  ; 
•«  but  I  don't  know  where  he  had  them.  And  it  is  not  eafy  for 
"  me  to  find,  how  the  Ideas  which  I  have  been  accuftomed  to  fix 
"  to  them  can  agree  with  them.  I  am  puzzled  to  know  what  they 
'*  have  to  do  here*." 

This,  to  ufe  our  Critic's  own  Words,  is  a  Specimen  of  that  Ga- 
limal/'as,  which  runs  through  his  whole  Commentary.  He  fuf- 
peds,  he  approves,  he  doubts,  he  applauds ;  but  it  all  ends  in  Ca- 
lumny and  Condemnation.  Here  you  have  an  old  Veteran  Con- 
troverfialift  of  feventy-five,  who  gives  the  World  his  fecond  Thoughts 
(for  he  had  publifhed  his  E;,amen  before  he  wrote  his  Commentary) 
telling  us  that  he  fcribbled  at  random,  and  made  the  greateft  Part 
of  his  Remarks  before  he  had  read  over  the  Book  he  wrote  againft : 
A  Book  that  contains  a  regular,  well-digefted  Syftem,  w'nofe  Parts, 
having  a  mutual  Dcpendance,  neceflarily  fupport  and  illuftrate  one 

*  Commentaire,  p.  332. 

another. 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.         155 

another.  But  if  a  Man  would  make  fo  free  with  himfelf  as  to  tell 
this  flrange  Story  to  the  World,  which  certainly  he  had  a  Right 
to  do,  he  fhould,  as  his  moral  Ciiaradler  was  concerned,  have 
made  Satisfa£lion  for  his  Folly,  hy  ftriking  cut  all  thofe  odious 
Imputations  with  which  the  foregoing  Part  of  his  Commentary 
abounds.  Inftead  of  this,  he  was  not  only  content  to  leave  the 
Calumnies  oi Fatalifm  zn^  Spinozifm  un-retra£led  ;  but  has  thought 
fit  to  renew  them,  even  after  this  Confeffion  of  his  hafty,  immature 
Way  of  Writing.  Ah  !  mifera  mens  hominis,  quo  te  fatum  fiC- 
piffime  trahit  I  What  but  this  could  have  forced  him  to  write  a 
whole  Book  in  Contradidlion  to  the  very  Principle  he  himfelf  lays 
down  to  proceed  by  ?  ^n  over-fcrupulous  Exaclitude  ffays  he) 
tvould  hurt  the  very  End  of  Poetry.  But  ive  tnujl  make  it  a  Law  to 
ifiterpret  one  Exprejfion  by  another,  for  fear  of  attributing  Notions  to 
a  Poet  that  ivould  be  injurious  to  him  *. 

But  to  return  :  This  is  not  all;  the  Poet  fliews  farther  [from  ]. 
330  to  343]  that,  when  the  funple-minded  Man,  on  hisfirft  fettiug 
out  in  the  Purfuit  of  Truth,  in  order  to  Happinefs,  has  had  the 
Wifdom 

To  look  thro'  Nature  up  to  Nature''s  God^ 

inftead  of  adhering  to  any  Se6t  or  Party,  where  there  was  fo  great 
Odds  of  his  chufing  wrong;  That  then  the  Benefit  of  gaining  the 
Knowledge  of  God's  Will  written  in  the  Mind  is  not  there  con- 
fined ;  for  that  ftanding  on  iKisfure  Foundation,  he  is  now  no  longer 
in  Danger  of  chufing  wrong,  amidfty«f^  Diverfties  of  Religions  ; 
but  by  purfuing  this  grand  Scheme  of  Univerfal  Benevolence,  in 
PraSiice,  as  well  as  Theory,  he  arrives  at  length  to  the  Knowledge 
of  the  revcaJed  Will  of  God,  which  is  the  Confummation  of  the  Sxjlcin 
<f  Benevolence : 

For  him  alone  Hope  leads  from  Goal  to  Goal," 

And  opens  ftill,  and  opens  on  his  Soul, 

*  Commentaire,  p.  196. 

X  2  'Till 


,55  A     C  O  M  M  E  N  TAR  Y    O  N 

''I  ill  Icngthcn'd  on  to  Faith,  nnd  unconfin'd, 
It  pours  the  Blils,  that  fills  up  all  the  Mind. 

But  kt  us  once  more  hear  Mr.  De  Croufaz :  '*  We  are  brought 
*'  (fays  he)  at  length  to  the  Truibs  of  Rtvelation. — See  Man  once 
*'  again  re-cftabli(hed  in  his  Rights,  raiCed  as  far  above  Brutes  as 
«'  Heaven  is  above  the  Earth.  How  infinite  a  Difference  between 
'♦  what  one  reads  in  this  fourth  Epiftle,  and  what  the  Poet  ven- 
"  turcd  to  propofe  in  the  frf,  and  in  part  of  the  iwo  following? 
"  There,  corrupt  Minds  thought  they  read  their  own  Sentiments  ; 
*•  and  even  this,  which  we  find  here,  is  infufficient  to  bring  them 
"  back  again  from  their  Preventions*." 

That  tlic  three fifi  Epiftles  have  nothing  contrary  to  \\\t  fourth^ 
we  have  not  only  fulficicntly  evinced,  but  fhewn  likewife,  that 
the  Dodrine  of  this  /«/?,  fo  much  approved  by  Mr.  Be  Croufaz^ 
is  the  neceflary  Confequence  of  that  laid  down  in  every  one  of 
the  prcccditigy  fo  much  condemned  by  him.  But,  that  corrupt 
M'nds  thought  they  read  their  own  Sentiments  there,  nay,  that  it 
will  6e  hard  to  bring  them  hack  again  from  ibeir  Preventions^  I  can 
ealily  conceive  ;  becaufe,  not  only  Partiality  to  Mens  own  Opi- 
nions, but  Prejudice  againft  the  Opinions  ai  others^  may  make  them 
fancy  they  fee  Dodtrines  in  a  celebrated  Writer^  which  are  in- 
deed not  there.  And  then.  Self-love  on  the  one  hand,  and  Self- 
conceit  on  the  other,  may  eafily  keep  both  in  their  feveral  Delu- 
fions,  againfl:  all  the  Power  of  Conviction. 

To  proceed,  The  Poet,  in  the  lafl:  Place,  marks  out  [from  1. 
342  to  36;?]  the  Progr.fs  of  his  Good  Man^s  Benevolence,  pufhed 
through  natur.il  Religion  to  revealed^  'till  it  arrives  to  that  Height, 
which  the  Sacred  Wiitcts  dcfcribe  as  the  very  Summit  of  Cbrif- 
tian  PerfeBion:  .And  fliews  how  the  Progrefs  of  human  differs 
from  the  Progrefs  of  divine  Benevolence.  1  hat  the  divine  defcends 
froin  Whole  to  Parts;  but  that  the  Liman  muft  rife  from  indi- 

'■  Comaicntaire,  p.  332,   333. 

vidual 


Mr.     POPE'S     ESSAY    ON    MAN.         157 

vidual  to  univerfal.     And  with  this  rapturous  Defcrlptiou  the  Sub- 
jed  of  the  Epiftle  clofcs  : 

Self- love  thus  pufli'd  to  focial,  to  divine, 

Gives  thee  to  make  thy  Neighbour's  Blefling  thine: 

Is  this  too  little  for  the  boundlefs  Heart  ? 

Extend  it,  let  thy  Enemies  have  Part. 

Grafp  the  whole  Worlds  of  Reafon,  Life,  and  Senfe, 

111  one  clofe  Syftem  of  Benevolence. 

Happier,  as  kinder  !  in  whate'er  Degree, 

And  height  of  Bliss,  but  height  of  Charity* 

GoJ  loves  from  Whole  to  Parts  ;  but  human  Soul 

MuH:  rife  from  Individual  to  the  Whole. 

Self-love  but  ferves  the  virtuous  Mind  to  wake,. 

As  the  fmall  Pebble  (lirs  the  peaceful  Lake ; 

The  Centre  mov'd,  a  Circle  ftrait  fucceeds, 

Another  ftill,  and  ftill  another  fpreads,  ^c 

The  laft  Part  of  the  Obfervatloa  is  important.  Rochefcctiuif, 
Efprit,  and  their  wordy  Difciple  Mandeville^  had  obferved,  that 
Self-love  was  the  Origin  of  all  thofe  Virtues  Mankind  mofl:  ad- 
mire ;  and  therefore  foollflily  fuppofed  it  was  the  End  likewlfe  : 
And  io,  taught  that  the  hlgheft  Pretences  to  Difintereflednefs 
were  only  the  more  artful  Difguifes  of  Self-love.  But  Mr.  Pope,. 
who  fays,  fomewhere  or  other, 

Of  human  Nature  Wit  its  worfl:  may  write,. 
We  all  revere  it  iu  our  own  Defpite, 

faw,  as  well  as  they,  and  every  body  elfe,  that  the  PaHions  began 
in  Self-love  ;  yet  he  underftood  human  Nature  better  than  to  imagine 
they  terminated  there.  He  knew  that  Reafon  and  Religion  could, 
convert  Selfjl.mefs  into  its  very  oppofite ;  and  therefore  teaches 
that 

Self-love  but  ferves  the  virtuous  Mind  to  wake, 


,^8  A     COMMENTARY    ON 

nnd  thus  liath  vindicated  tlje  Dignity  of  human  Nature,  and  the 
l^lillolophic  Truth  of  the  Chriftlan  Doarine. 

But  let  us  turn  once  more  to  Mr.  De  Crcufaz,  who,  conftant  to 
himfelf,  concludes,  in  the  fame  even  tenor  in  which  he  firft  fet 
out.  "  A  Man  ((ays  he)  muft  ufe  fome  Efforts  to  go  even  fo  far 
"  as  to  love  his  Enemies.— But  as  to  what  concerns  all  Parts  of  the 
"  Univcrfc,  and  all  the  living  Beings  that  inhahit  it,  as  well  thofe 
•*  we  fee  not,  as  thofe  we  do  fee,  we  find  nothing  in  ourfelves  re- 
"  pugnant  indeed  to  the  giving  them  our  Love;  but  then,  on  the 
♦'  other  hand,  we  do  not  feel  any  Motions  towards  the  rendering  it 
"  to  tlicm.  And  while  fo  great  a  Numher  of  Objefts,  with  which 
"  we  are  clofely  furroundod,  demand  our  Attention  and  Concern, 
"  it  appears  not  only  fuperfluous  but  even  irrational,  to  teaze  our- 
"  fclves  with  I  cannot  tell  what  Kind  of  Tendernefs,  forthelnha- 
♦'  bitants  of  Jupiter  *,  ^c." 

This  prefents  him  with  a  pleafant  Idea,  and  he  purfjes  it  with 
his  ufual  Grace  and  Vivacity. 

After  this  one  would  fcarce  think  that  in  the  very  next  Words 
he  fhould  confute  himfelf,  anfwer  his  own  Objeftlons,  and  viiidi- 
cate  the  very  Charity  he  had  ridiculed.  And  yet  this  he  now  does, 
as  much  without  Fear,  as  the  other  was  without  Wit.  "  I  own 
*'  (fays  he)  that  a  Soul  devoted  to  Its  Creator,  and  ftruck  and  ralfed 
*'  with  Admiration  at  the  attentive  View  of  his  mere  corporeal 
"  Creation,  would  be  ready  to  lend  thofe  Beings  his  Voice  and  Sen- 
*'  timents,  in  order  to  join  with  them  in  an  Offering  of  Pralfe  and 
♦'  Thankfgivlng  to  their  common  Creator,  whofe  Glory  they  fo 
♦'  magnificently  declare,  though  without  any  Knowledge  of  the 
"  Truth  which  they  proclaim.  Nay,  I  go  farther,  and  fay,  that  a 
"  Soul  fo  fandlfied,  and  at  the  fame  time  well  affured,  that  there 
•*  are  innumerable  Choirs  of  happy  hitclllgences,  who  continually 
"  adore  their  Creator  in  extatlc  Raptures,  far  furpafhng  our  Con- 
"  ceptions,  will  congratulate  with  them  on  their  Glory  f  and  Feli- 

*  Commcr.taire,  p.  336.  f  lb.  p.  337,   338. 

'*  city." 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON    MAN.  159 

*'  city."  Here  we  fee  defcribed,  and,  to  fay  the  Truth,  not  ill,  that 
very  State  of  Mind  which  produced  the  Raptures  of  our  admirable 
Poet: 

Grafp  the  whole  Worlds  of  Reafon,  Life,  and  Senfe, 

In  one  clofe  Syftem  of  Benevolence. 

Happier,  as  kinder  !   in  whate'er  Degree, 

And  height  of  Bllfs  but  height  of  Charity. 

No,  fays  our  Critic,  who  would  ftill  keep  on  foot  the  Cenfure  he 
himfelf  lias  overthrown  ;  the  Elevations  I  fpeak  of,  are  not  Eleva- 
tions of  Charity  for  thofe  glorious  Intelligences.  JVe  are  the  Obje&s  of 
their  Charity,  not  they  of  ours  *.  Egregious  Philofopher  !  By  Cha- 
rity, Mv.  Po/)e  not  only  wr^«j  Benevolence,  but  exprefsly  calls  it 
fo.  And  Benevolence  furely  may  be  as  well  exercifcd  towards  Supe- 
riors,  as  by  them. 

But  he  proceeds — "Hiis  pretended  chimerical  Affedion  can  have 
♦'  no  Foundation  but  in  the  chimerical  Syftem  of  «7  IVhole,  of  which 
♦'  we  make  a  Part,  and  of  which  all  the  Parts  without  Exception 
"  are  io  dependent  011  each  other,  that,  if  any  one.  only  be  difplaced, 
♦'  or  never  fo  little  deviating  from  its  proper  Function,  that  Dif- 
"  order  will  affedl  the  reft,  and  fpread  itfelf  over  the  Whole:  And, 
"  by  confequence,  extend  to  us,  who  make  an  eflentialPart  of  that 
"Whole.  Self-love  therefore,  Interefts  itfelf  in  everything  that 
*'  exifts  and  moves."  Self-love  was  never  fent  on  fuch  an  Errand, 
no  not  by  Rochefocault  or  Efprit,  though  they  forced  it  to  do  all 
their  Drudgery.  Here,  a  Man  who  never  yet  once  rightly  under- 
ftood  ivhat  his  Adverfary  did  fay,  will  now  pretend  to  guefs  at  his 
Keafons  for  faying.  One  might  have  forefeen  with  what  Succefs. 
But  fomething  he  has  taught  us,  and  that  is,  to  reft:  content  with 
the  Poet's  own  Reafoning.  His  Argument  then  for  this  extended 
Benevolence  is,  that  as  God  has  made  a  Whole,  whofe  Parts  have 
a  perfect  Relation  to,  and  an  entire  Dependency  on  each  other, 
Man,  in  extending  his  Benevolence  throughout  that  Whole,  ads  in 

*  Commentairc,  p.  338. 

Con- 


,Co  A    C  O  M  M  E  N  T  A  R  Y    O  N 

Confonnlty  to  the  Will  of  his  Creator ;  and  therefore,  thh  En/urge- 
mffit  of  his  AtKaion  becomes  a  Duty. 

But  the  Poet  hath  not  only  fhewn  his  Piely  in  this  Precept,  but 
tlie  utmoft  Art  and  AdJrefs  likewife  in  the  Dlfpofition  of  it.  The 
Epy  on  Man  opens  with  expofing  the  Murmurings,  and  in:ipious 
Conclufions  of  foolifli  Men  againft  the  prefent  Conftitution  of 
Things.  As  it  proceeds,  it  occafionally  detefts  all  thofe  falfe  Prin- 
ciples and  Opinions  that  led  them  to  conclude  thus  perverfely. 
Having  now  done  all  tiiat  was  neceflary  in  Speculation,  the  Poet 
turns  to  Fraaice ;  and  ends  his  Eflay  with  the  Recommendation 
of  an  acknowledged  Virtue,  Charity,  which,  if  exercifed  in  the 
Extent  that  Conformity  to  the  Will  of  God  requires,  would  ef- 
fcflually  prevent  all  Complaints  againft  the  prefent  Order  of  Things  : 
Such  Complaints  being  made  with  a  total  Dlfregard  to  every  thing, 
but  their  own  private  Syjlem  ;  and  feeking  Remedy  in  the  Diforder, 
and  at  the  Expence  of  all  the  reft. 

The  Art  and  Contrivance,  we  fee,  is  truly  admirable.  But  Mr. 
De  Croufaz  purfues  his  own  Ideas.  For  to  know  Mr.  Popes,  feems 
to  have  been  his  leaft  Concern  throughout  his  whole  Commentary. 
*'  This  Syftem  [namely,  of  a  Whole"]  will  carry  us  to  a  great  length. 
*'  Miracles,  which  deviate  from  the  ordinary  Courfe  of  Nature, 
«'  muft  pafs  from  henceforward  as  idle  Fable."  [Obferve  his  reafon] 
*'  It  was  impoffible  that  any  kind  of  thing  which  has  happened, 
"  (hould  not  have  happened,  or  not  have  happened  In  the  Manner 
"  it  hath  *."  As  to  Mr.  Pope''s  Fatalifm,  we  have  faid  enough  of 
that  Matter  already.  But  now,  if,  for  Difputation's  Sake,  we  ad- 
mit what,  for  Truth's  Sake,  we  muft  rejeft,  according  to  my  No- 
tions of  Logic,  this  Conclufion  would  follow,  that  therefore  Mira- 
cles could  not  but  have  been  ;  not  Mr.  Croufazs,  that  therefore  they 
never  could  be.  Miracles  are  proved,  like  other  Matters  of  Fadl,  by 
human  Tcfiimony :  If  that  fays.  Iron  at  one  time  fwam,  at  otlier 
iimes  funk,  and    we  fuppofe  Things  ordered  fatally  ;    thefe  two 

*  Commcntaire,  p.  339. 

Events 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  i6i 

Events  were  equMy  neceffary :  So  that,  to  make  out  his  Conclufion, 
he  muft  be  forced  to  add  downright  Alheifm  to  his  Fate. 

Mv.  De  Crcufaz  lias  now  puftied  Matters  to  a  decent  I^^ngtli, 
He  has  laid,  the  Poet's  Extent  of  Charity  was  irrational — the  Syjiem 
on  which  it  was  founded  chimerical — that  it  ended  in  Fate — and 
overthrew  all  Miracles.  One  would  imagine  this  fliould  have  fatif- 
fied  the  mpfl:  orthodox  Refentment.  But  there  wanted  fomething 
to  make  a  right  polemical  Climax.  To  crown  the  Whole,  there- 
fore, he  tells  us,  that,  "  According  to  the  Poet,  theUniverfc  would 
*'  not  have  been  a  Work  fufliciently  worthy  of  God,  had  there  not 
*'  been  Atheifts,  Supcrftitious,  Perfecutors,  Tyrants,  Idolaters, 
"  Afiaffins,  and  Poifoners  *."  What  I  can  find  in  the  EJfay  com- 
ing neareft  to  this,  is,  That  thofe  Mifchiefs  do  not  deform  God's 
Creation;  becaufe  the  divine  Art  is  inceffantly  producing  Good  out 
of  Evil :  And  that  as  this  Univerfe  is  the  beft  of  all  thofe  in  God's 
Idea,  therefore,  whatever  is,  is  right,  with  refped  to  that  Univerfe  : 
Either  as  tending,  in  its  own  Nature^  to  the  Perfedion  of  it,  or 
made  fo  to  tend  by  infinite  Wifdom,  contrary  to  its  Nature.  The 
true  Confequence  drawn  from  all  this,  is.  That  an  Univerfe  with 
Atheifs,  Superfitious,  Sec.  is f efficiently  worthy  of  God.  How  that 
can  infer  this  other,  That  the  Univerfe  would  not  have  been  a  Work 
ftificiently  worthy  of  God,  had  there  not  been  Atke'f,  Superfitious, 
Sec.  I  leave  Mr.  De  Croufiz  to  draw  out  by  his  own  Logic,  or, 
which  feems  the  m.ore  dudile  of  the  two,  his  own  Confcience. 

The  Poet's  Addrefs  to  his  Friend,  which  follows,  and  clofes  this 
Epijlle,  comes  not  within  the  Defign  of  thefe  Obfervations  !  which 
are  only  to  explain  the  Fbilofophy  and  Recfoning  o£  the  Efay  on  Man. 
Otherwife,  this  fmgle  Apoftrophe  would  fumifli  a  Critic  with  Ex- 
amples of  every  one  of  thofe /w  Species  of  Elocution,  from  which, 
as  from  its  Sources,  Longinus  deduceth  the  Sublime  -]-. 

*  Comnientahe,  p.  340. 

^  — TOfvIs  ■anyai  the?  iij"  t'  i^rf-.^ia^.  I.  Tl^uTcv  iA<  >y  xjaTij-oi  ^l  zri^t  Taj  ro>)(r«f  a^fi-!Tr,So?.ou 
2.  Ai^TE£0»  i\  TO  ffpoJfi.  ^  J.W.ar'v.Sir  waSo?.      3.  Ho.i  T^K  cxni^'^-""  wXatrij.     4.  "H  yiftaTx  ^jao-.j. 

Vol.  VI.  Y  I.  The 


,62  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

,.  The  firft  nnd  chief  is  a  Grandair  and  Sublimity  of  Concep- 

lien  : 

Come  then,  my  Friend  !  my  Genius  come  along, 
O  Maftcr  of  the  Poet,  and  the  Song! 
And  while  the  Mufe  now  fl:oops,  and  now  afcends. 
To  Man's  low  Paflions,  or  their  glorious  Ends. 

2.  The  Second,  that  Pathetic  Entbufiafm,  which  at  the  fame  time 
melts  and  ctifomes  : 

Teach  me,  like  thee,  in  various  Nature  wife. 
To  fall  with  Dignity,  with  Temper  rife, 
Form'd  by  thy  Converfe,  happily  to  fleer 
From  grave  to  gay,  from  lively  to  fevere. 
Correct  with.  Spirit,  eloquent  with  Eafe,, 
Intent  to  reafon,  or  polite  to  pleafe. 

3.  A  certain  elegant  Formation  and  OrdonanCe  of  Figures  i 
O  !  while  along  the  Stream  of  Time,  thy  Name 
Expanded  flies,  and  gathers  all  its  Fame, 

Say,  fhall  my  little  Bark  attendant  fail, 
Purfue  the  Triumph  and  partake  the  Gale  ? 

4.  AJplendid  Di^ion: 

When  Statefmen,  Heroes,  Kings,  In  Dull  repofe, 
Whofe  Sons  Ihall  blufli  their  Fathers  were  thy  Foes, 
Shall  then  this  Verfe  to  future  Age  pretend 
Thou  wert  my  Guide,  Philofopher,  and  Friend  ? 
That,  urg'd  by  thee,  I  turn'd  the  tuneful  Art, 
From  Sounds  to  Things,  from  Fancy  to  the  Heart ; 
For  Wit*s  falfe  Mirror  held  up  Nature's  Light ; 

Andffthlyy  which  includes  in  itfelf  all  the  refl,  a  Weight  and  Dig' 
nity  in  the  Compofition  : 

Shew'd  erring  Pride  whatever  ;V,  is  Right  ; 

That 


Mr.    POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  165 

That  Reason,  Passion,  anfwcr  one  great  Aim  ; 
That  true  Self-love  and  Social  are  the  Same; 
That  Virtue  only  makes  our  Bliss  below  ; 
And  all  our  Knowledge  is  Ourselves  to  know  ? 

But  this,  as  we  {liy,  is  not  our  Province  at  prefent.  I  fhall  there- 
fore content  myfelf  with  an  Obfervation,  which  this  fublime  Re- 
capitulation of  the  general  Argument,  in  the  laft  Lines,  affords  me 
to  conclude  with.  Which  is,  of  one  great  Beauty  that  fhines 
through  the  whole  ^//^y.  It  is  this,  that  the  Poet,  whether  he 
fpeaks  of  Man  as  an  Indhidital,  a  Member  of  Society,  or  the  Sub- 
ie&  of  Happifiefs^  never  miffeth  an  Opportunity,  while  he  is  explain- 
ing his  State  under  any  of  thefe  Capacities,  to  illuflrate  it,  in  the 
mod  artful  Manner,  by  the  Inforcement  of  his  grand  Principle, 
That  every  thing  tends  to  the  Good  of  the  Whole.  PVom  whence  his 
Syftem  receives  the  reciprocal  Advantage  of  having  that  grand 
Theorem  realized  by  Fa^is^  and  his  Fii£is  jufliiied  on  a  Principle  of 
Right  or  Nature. 

Thus  have  I  endeavoured  to  analyfe  and  explain  the  noble  Rea- 
foning  of  thefe  four  Epiflles.  Enough,  I  prefume,  to  convince  our 
Critic's  Friends  that  it  hath  a  Precifion,  Force,  and  Clofenefs  of 
Connexion,  rarely  to  be  met  with,  even  in  the  moft  formal  Trea- 
tifes  of  Phiiofophy.  Yet  in  doing  this,  it  is  but  too  evident  I 
have  deftroyed  that  Grace  and  Energy  which  animates  the  Origi- 
nal. So  right  was  Mr.  Papers  Predidion  of  the  Event  of  fuch  an 
Undertaking,  where  he  fays,  in  his  Preface,  that,  he  was  unable  to 
treat  this  Fart  of  his  Subjedi  more  in  Detail,  without  becoming  dry 
and  tedious.  And  now  let  the  Reader  believe,  if  he  be  fo  difpofed, 
what  our  great  Logician  infinuates  to  be  his  own  Sentiments,  as  well 
as  thofe  of  his  Friends  :  "  That  certain  Perfons  have  conjectured  that 
*'  Mr.  Pope  did  not  compofe  this  E^j/  at  once,  and  in  a  regular 
«'  Order ;  but  that  after  he  had  wrote  feveral  Fragments  of  Poetry, 
*'  all  finilhed  in  their  Kind ;  one,  for  Example,  on  the  Parallel 
♦*  between  Reafon  and  Injiin^;  another,  upon  Man's  groundlefs 
Y  2  '^Pridcx 


,64.  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

*'  Pr.i/f ;  another,  on  the  Prerogatives  oi  hiwi  mi  Nature-,  another, 
"  onRiligion  and  Superjiition;  another,  on  the  Original  of  Society  ? 
•«  and  feveral  Fragn:ients  bcfides,  on  Self-love  and  the  Pajfiom ;  he 
•'  tacked  thefe  together  as  he  could,  and  divided  them  into  four 
•'  Epiftles,  as,  it  is  laid,  was  the  Fortune  of  Homer*s  Rhapfodies  *.'*■ 
Yes,  1  believe  full  as  much  of  Mr.  Pope's  Rhapfodies^  as  1  doof //o- 
mer''s.  But  if  this  be  the  Cafe,  that  the  Leaves  of  thefe  two  great 
Poets  were  wrote  at  random,  tofled  about,  and  afterwards  put  ia 
Order,  like  the  Cumaan  Sibyls  ;  then,  what  we  have  till  now  thoughc 
an  old  lying  Bravado  of  the  Poets,  That  they  wrote  by  Infpiration^ 
will  become  a  fober  Truth.  For,  \i  Qiance  could  not  produce  them^ 
and  human  defign  had  no  hand  in  them,  what  muft  we  conclude,  but 
that  they  are,  what  they  are  fo  commonly  called,.  D/Ww^  .? 

However,  fo  honourable  an  Account  of  Rhapfody  Writing  fliould 
by  all  means  be  encouraged,  as  Matter  of  Confolation  to  certain 
modern  Writers  in  Divinity  and  Politics.  But  the  Mifchief  is,  our 
Logician  has  given  us  an  unlucky  Proof  in  his  own  Cafe,  that  all 
Rhapfodifs  are  not  fb  happy. 

To  be  ferious  :  As  to  Homer,  one  might  hope,  by  this  time,  thofe 
old  exploded  Fooleries  about  his  Rhapfodies  would  be  forgotten. 
But  as  to  his  Tranjlator,  it  muft  be  owned,  he  has  given  Caufe 
enough  of  Difguft  to  our  Philojophers  and  Men  of  Re  a f on.  Till  this 
time,  every  Poet,  good  or  bad,  ftack  fairly  to  his  Profeffion  :  But 
Mr.  Pope,  now  the  laft  of  the  poetic  Line  amongft  us,  on  whom 
the  large  Patrimony  of  his  whole  Race  is  devolved,  feems  defirous, 
as  is  natural  in  fuch  Cafes,  to  ally  himfelf  to  a  more  lafting  Family  ; 
andfo,  after  having  difported  himfelf  at  Will,  in  the  , flowery  Paths 
of  Fancy,  and  revelled  in  all  the  Favours  of  the  Mufes,  boafls  of 
having  taken  up  in  time,  and  courted  and  efpoufed  Truth  :- 
That  not  in  Fancy  s  Maze  he  wander'd  long. 
But  ftoop'd  to  Truth,  and  moraliz'd  his  Song. 

But  now,  in  what  Light,  muft  we  think,  will  the  graver  Chrif- 
tian  Reader  regard  the  Calumnies  we  have  here  confuted  ?    How  fad 

*  Coramentaire,  p.  346, 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY    ON    MAN.  165 

atl  Idea  will  this  give  him  of  tlie  prefent  Spirit  of  Chriftinn  Profef- 
fion,  that  a  Work,  wrote  folely  to  recommend  the  Charity  that 
Religion  foftrongly  inforceth,  and  breathing  nothing  but  Love  to 
God,  and  univerfal  Good-will  to  Man,  fhould  bring  upon  the  Au- 
thor fuch  a  Storm  of  uncharitable  Bitternefs  and  Calumny,  and  that, 
i-rom  a  pretended  Advocate  of  Chriftianity  ?  A  Religion  the  very 
Vitality  of  which  (if  we  may  believe  ]t%  Propagators)  is  Univerfal 
Benevolence  :  For  the  End  of  the  Commandment  is  Charity  *.  Con- 
formably hereunto  we  may  obferve,  that  in  their  Epijiles  to  the 
Churches,  whatever  the  Occrfion  was,  whatever  Difcipline  they  in- 
flituted,  whatever  Points  of  Faith  they  explained,  whatever  Hcre- 
iies  they  fligmatized,  whatever  Immoralities  they  condemned, 
or  whatever  Virtues  they  recommended,  Charity  was  flill  the 
Thing  moft  conftantly  enforced,  as  the  very  End  of  all,  the  Bend 
of  PerfeSinefs  f.  The  beloved  Difciple  of  our  Lord,  particu- 
larly, who  may  furely  be  fuppofed  to  know  his  Mafter's  Will,, 
hath  wrote  his  Epiftle  on  fet  Purpofe  to  recommend  this  fingle  Vir- 
tue :  At  a  Crifis  too,  when,  as  Herefies  were  fpringing  up  apace,  a 
modern  Controverfialift  would  be  apt  to  think  lie  might  have  em- 
ployed his  Time  better.  And  why  (it  may  be  reafonably  aiked)  fa 
very  much  on  Charity,  in  an  Age  when  Chriftlaiis  had  lb  few  Pro- 
vocations or  Temptations  to  violate  it  ?  For  their  Faith  being  yet 
chafte  from  the  Proftitutions  of  the  S<:bocls,.  and  their  Hierarchy 
yet  uncorrupted  by  the  Gifts  of  Conflmtine,-  the  Church  knew  nei» 
thef  Bigotry  nor  Ambition,  the  two  fatal  Sources  of  uncharitable 
Zeal.  I  will  tell  you,  it  was  the  Providence  of  their  prophetic  Spi- 
rit, which  prefented  to  them  the  Image  of  thofe  miferable  Times 
foretold  by  their  Mafter,  \v\\t\\  Iniquity potdd  abound,  and  the  hove- 
of  many  wax  cold  \,  So  that  if  the  Men  of  thofe  Times  fhould  per- 
fiil  in  violating  this  Bond  of  Perfetlnefs,  after  fo  many  repeated  Ad- 
monitions, they  might  be  found  altogether  without  Excufe.  For  J 
can  by  no  means  enter  into  the  Views  of  that  profound  Philofoplier, 
who  difcovered  that  fefus  and  his  Followers  might  preach  up  Love 

•   I  Tim.  i.  5-  f  Col,  iii.   14.  J  Matt.  xxiv.  \i. 

and 


,66  A    COMMENTARY    ON 

and  Charily,  the  hotter  to  enable  a  Set  of  Men,  fome  Centuries 
atterwnrds,"  to  tyrannife  over  thofe  whom  the  eugagitig  Sounds  of  Cha- 
rity and  Brotherly  Love  had  in  trapped  Into  Subjedion  *. 

I  am  aware  that  certain  modern  Propagators  of  the  Faith,  aided 
with  a  School  Di/linflion,  will  tell  you,  that  it  is  pure  Charity  which 
ft;ts  them  all  at  work;  and  that  what  you  call  IJncharitablmefs^ 
when  thev  infult  the  Fame,  the  Fortune,  or  the  Perfon  of  their 
Brother,  is  indeed  the  very  Height  of  Charity,  a  Charity  for  his 
Soul  This  indeed  may  be  the  Height  of  the  Hangman's  Charity, 
who  waits  for  your  Cloaths  :  But  it  could  never  be  St.  Paul's.  His 
was  not  eafily  prcvoked,  thought  no  Evil,  bore  nil  Things,  hoped  all 
Things,  endured  all  Things  f.  It  was  a  Charity  that  began  in  Can- 
dour, infpired  good  Opinion,  and  fought  the  temporal  Happinefsof 
his  Brother. 

I  leave  it  with  Mr,  De  Croufa%  to  think  upon  the  different  Ef- 
fcfls  which  Excefs  of  Zeal  in  the  Service  of  Religion  hath  pro- 
duced in  him.  For  I  will,  in  very  Charity,  believe  it  to  be  really 
that ;  notvvithftanding  we  every  Day  fee  the  mofl  defpicable  Tools 
oi others  Impotencv,  and  the  vileft  Slaves  to  their  own  Ambition,  hide 
their  corrupt  Pafllons  under  the  felf-fame  Cover.  This  learned 
Gentleman  {hould  refled  on  what  the  fober  Part  of  the  World 
will  thiuk  of  his  Conduft.  For  though  the  Apoflle  bids  aged 
Men  be  sound  in  Faith,  he  adds  immediately,  and  in  Charity, 
IN  Patience  \  likewife.  But  where  was  his  Charity  In  labouring, 
on  the  flightcfl:  Grounds,  to  reprefent  his  Brother  as  propagating 
Spinozijm  and  Immorality  ?  Where  was  his  Temper,  when  he 
became  fo  furious  againft  him,  on  the  Suppofitlon  of  his  efpoufing  a 
Syfim  \\t  \\7iA  never  read,  that  oi  Leibnitz ',  and  juftifying  a  Doc- 
trine he  had  never  heard  of,  the  pre-ejlablifhed  Harmony  ?  Where 
was  his  Patience,  when,  having  conceived  this  of  hiin,  on  the  mere 
Authority  of  a  mojl  miftaken  Tranflator,  he  would  not  ftay  to  inquire 
whether  the  Author  owned  the  Faithfulnefs  of  the  Verfion  ;  but 

»   CharaAerifticVs,  vol.  i.   p.  87.  vol.  iii.  p.  115.  Ed.  1737. 
•}■   I  Cor.  xiii.  5.  7.  %  Titus  ii.  3. 

pub- 


Mr.     POPE'S    ESSAY     ON     MAN.  167 

piibliflied  his  Conceptions,  and  the  ftrongen:  Accufations  upon  thofe 
Conceptions,  in  Volume  after  Volume,  to  the  whole  World? 
Where,  if  in  any  ot  thefe  Im;iginations  fo  founded,  he  fliould  be 
mlftaken,  he  became  guilty  of  a  deliberate  and  repeated  Aft  of  tlie 
highcfl:  Injuftice;  the  attempting  to  deprive  a  virtuous  Man  of  his 
honeft  Reputation. 

If  Mr.  De  Croufaz  prefumes  his  Zeal  for  the  Honour  of  God  will 
excufe  his  Violations  of  Ciiarity  towards  Men,  I  muft  tell  him,  he 
knorvs  not  what  Spirit  he  is  of.  If  a  Man  (fays  the  beloved  DifcipLe 
of  our  Lord)  fay,  1  love  God,  and  hateth  his  Brother,  he  is  a  Liar: 
For  he  that  loveth  not  his  Brother  whom  he  hathfeen,  how  can  he  lonie 
God  whom  he  hath  not  fen  *  ?  A  Free-thinker  may  perhaps  laugh  at 
the  Simplicity  of  this  Argument,  which  yet  he  would  aft'edl  to 
admire,  could  any  one  find  it  for  him  in  Plato.  But  let  him  for 
once  condefcend  to  be  inflrufted  by  his  Bible,  and  hearken  to  a  little 
Chrifian  Reafoning. 

"  You  fay  you  love  God  (fays  the  Apoflle)  though  you  hate  your 
*'  Brother  :  Impofiible  !  The  Love  of  any  Objedl  begins  originally, 
•'  like  all  the  other  Paffions,  from  Self-love.  I'hus  we  love  our- 
"  felves,  by  Reprefentation,  in  our  Offspring;  which  Love  extends- 
**  by  degrees  to  our  remoter  Relations,  and  fo  on  through  our 
"  Neighbourhood,  to  all  the  Fellow-Members  of  our  Community^ 
*'  And  now  Self-love,  refined  by  Reafon  and  Religion,  begins  ta- 
"  lofe  its  Nature,  and  defervedly  affumes  another  Name  Our 
"  Country  next  claims  our  Love  ;  we  then  extend  it  to  all  Maii- 
"  kind,  and  never  reft  till  we  have,  at  length,  fixed  it  on  that 
*'  mojl  amiable  of  all  Objects,  the  great  Author  and  Original  of  Being, 
"  This  is  the  Courfe  and  Progrefs  of  human  Love  : 
God  loves  from  Whole  to  Parts,  but  human  Soul 
Muft  rife  from  Individual  to  the  Whole. 

Now  (purfues  the  Apoftle)   I   reafon   thus  :   *'  Can  you,  who  are 
'*  not  yet  arrived  at  that  inferior  Stage  of  Benevolence,  the  Love 

*   J  John  iv.  20, 

u  of 


i68  A    COMMENTARY,     ^c. 

••  of  your  Brotlier,  -whom  yon  havefecn,  that  is,  whom  the  Necef- 
*♦  fitics  of  Civil  Lite,  and  a  Scnfc  of  your  mutual  Relation  might 
«»  teach  you  to  love,  pretend  to  have  reached  the  very  Height  and 
♦^  rerfeaiou  of  this  Paflion,  the  Love  of  God  -d^hom  you  have  not 
*♦ /ffw?  that  is,  w/^o/.?  wonderful  Oeconomy  in  his  Syftem  of  Crea- 
♦'  tion,  which  makes  him  lb  amiable,  you  cannot  have  the  leafl: 
♦'  Conception  of;  you,  who  have  not  yet  learnt  that  your  own  pri- 
«'  vatc  Syftem  is  fupported  on  the  great  Principle  of  Benevolence? 
*'  Fear  him,  fatter  him,  fght  for  him,  as  you  dread  his  Power, 
♦'  you  may ;  but  to  love  him,  as  you  know  not  his  Nature,  is  im- 
*'  poflible."  This  is  the  Apoftle's  grand  and  fublime  Reafoning  ; 
and  it  is  with  the  fame  Thought  on  which  the  Apoftle  founds  his 
Argument  that  our  moral  Poet  ends  his  Eflay,  as  the  juft  and  necei- 
fary  Conclufion  of  his  Work  : 

Self-love  but  ferves  the  virtuous  Mind  to  wake. 

As  the  fmall  Pebble  ftirs  the  peaceful  Lake  j 

The  Centre  mov'd,  a  Circle  ftrait  fucceeds. 

Another  ftill,  and  ftill  another  fpreads  ; 

Friencl,  Parent,  Neighbour,  firfl:  it  will  embrace, 

W\%  Country  next,  and  next,  all  human  Race  ; 

"Wide,  and  more  wide,  th'O'erflowings  of  the  Mind 

Take  every  Creature  in,  of  every  Kind; 

Earth  fmiles  around,  with  boundlefs  Bounty  bleft. 

And  Heaven  beholds  its  Image  in  his  BreasTo 


REMARKS 


REMARKS 

On  a  book,  intituled, 
FUTURE   REWARDS  AND   PUNISHMENTS 

BELIEVED    BY    THE    A  N  T  I  E  N  T  S, 
PARTICULARLY  TtiE  PHI  LOS  OPHERSj 

Wherein  fome  Objections  of    the  Rev.  Mr.  Warburton, 
in  his  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  are  confidered,  1742. 


A  POSTSCRIPT,  IN  Answer  TO  SOME  Objections 
OF  Dr.  S  y  kes  ; 

and, 

A  LETTER  to  Bp.  Smallbrook. 

*'  Beware  left  any  Man  fpoil  you  through  Philosophy  and  vain 
*'  Deceit,  after  the  Traditions  of  Men,  after  the  Rudiments  of 
*•  the  World,  and  not  after  Christ."  Col.  ii.  8. 


Vol.  VI.  Z 


ADVERTISEMENT  to  the  Second  Edition,    1742. 

THE  Author  of  the  Pnmphlet  here  examined  hath  lately  made 
a  public  Conftflion  of  his  Authorfhip,.  figncd  with  his  own  Navie; 
and  thereby  faved  himlelf  from  all  larther  Corredion  of  this  k^nd. 
For  he  who  is  fo  loft  to  Shame,  as  a  Writeji,  to  own  what  he 
before  wrote,  and  fo  loft  to  Shame,  as  a  Man,  to  own  what  he- 
hath  now  written,  muft  needs  be  paft  all  Amendment,  the  only 
reafonable  View  in  Corre&icn.  I  fhall  therefore  but  do,  what  in- 
deed (were  it  any  more  than  repeating  what  he  himfelf  hath  dis- 
covered to  the  Public)  would  be  juftly  reckoned  the  crueleft  of  all 
things,  tell  my  Reader  the  Name  of  tills  Miferable  ;  which  we  find 
to  be  I.  TILLARD. 


REMARKS. 


[    i7»     ] 


REMARKS. 


THOUGH  I  could  not  perfuade  myfelf  to  take  this  Notice 
of  fuch  a  kind  of  Writer  as  him  of  the  Mifcellan)\  yet  a 
very  Uttle  tiling,  the  Reader  fees,  will  engage  me  to  give  an  Ad- 
veilary  Satisfadlon  ;  while  I  fuffer  myfelf  to  be  feduced  into  a 
Controverfy  by  the  Writer  of  a  late  Book,  intituled.  Future  Re~ 
guards  atjd  Puwpments  believed  by  the  Ancients^  particularly  the  Phi' 
lof'jphcrs  ;  wherein  Jome  Obje^ions  of  the  Reverend  Mr.  Warburton,  in 
his  Divine  Legation  of  Moses,  are  conJiJered*. 

And  a  very  little  Thing  it  was  ;  only  the  finding  in  his  Book 
one  fingle  Truth,  which  does  me  a  Piece  of  Juftice,  that  the  ortho- 
dox Writer  above-mentioned  would  by  no  means  be  brought  unto, 
even  after  his  Conviftion  of  Calumny  on  that  Head.  It  is  in 
thefe  Words  ;  But  Imuji  here  do  Co  much  Juflice  to  Mr.  Warburton, 
as  to  acknowledge,  that  the  Point  he  denies,  is,  that  the  Philofophen 
only  did  not  believe  future  Re^vards  arid  Punifimcnts  ;  whereas  he  al- 
lows  all  others  did  believe  them  t- 

"*  8vo,  London,    1740.     Printed  by  M,  Steen,  in  the  Inner-Temple  Lane, 
t  P.  84. 

Z  2  For 


,73  REMARKS    ON    TILLARD. 

For  the  reft,  neither  his  JbUit'tes  nor  liis  Candour  deferved  this 
Notice.  His  M-rities  nre  duly  celebrated  in  thcfe  few  Sheets ;  and 
for  his  QinJour,  the  Rcaiier  will.  I  believe,  require  no  farther  Proof 
thau  the  foUowlng : — <fur  4i!i  ihcfe  Iwfy  Dtfcrlptiom—if  then 
can  the  Uajl  Doubt  remain  m  the  Reader's  Breaji—it  mnji  an fe  from 
the  hifluence  and  P repofj'iffwn  ofafeiv  random  Exprcfwns  now  and  then 
thrtncn  out  to  depreciate  the  Philofophers,  by  certain  Pcrfons,  ivho, 
thinking  thmfehes  obliged  to  fay  fome thing  out  of  the  common  Road, 
very  frequently  difcover  their  Ignorance  and  want  of  SensE  im 
THE  VERY  Attempt  to  display  their  Learning:  But  that 
SUCH  Pretenders  to  Knowledge,  such  empty  Mimics  of 
REAL  Worth,  may  no  longer  impcse  iipon  Pcrfons  of  ^good 
Utiderpnding—J/Jjall^,  ^c. 

But  tiiough  1  ftiew  this  I)iftin£lion  to  a  puny  Truth  half  over- 
bid, which  I  was  forced  to  draw  froin  under  an  unwieldy  Heap  of 
Blunders  and  Prevarications  :  yet,  let  it  be  obferved,  that  this  Is 
only  for  once,  and  out  of  due  Regard  to  the  firft  Writer  againft  me,, 
that  has  condcfcended  to  fay  any  thing  truly  of  me  :  For  I  hope 
common  Honefty  is  not  {o  rare,  even  amongji  An/werers  by  Profef- 
Jion  (of  all  fobcr  Knaves  the  moil  corrupt)  that  this  Tribute  need  be 
paid  twice  unto  it. 

My  Confiderer  begins  his  Preface  thus :  T^he  Motive  which  prin- 
cipally induced  me  to  tuhlifh  the  following  Collenion  and  Obfervaiions, 
•was  the  firange  and  unjujlifiable  Methods  which  fpme  Men  take  to  ad- 
vance their  own  systems  by  depreciating  and  running  down  thofe  of 
others  f.  The  Reader  fees  what  the  Man  would  be  at.  Here  is  no 
Dlfguife  or  Referve  however.  It  is  the  old  Infidel  Grudge  againft 
the  z«/5/ir^«/ Spirit  of  Chriftianity,  deliveredly  as  crudely  as  ever 
his  dear  Friends,  the  Philofophers,  urged  It  againft  the  primitive 
Jpdogifs.  Their  great  Quarrel  to  Chriftianity  was,  that  its  Defen- 
ders endeavoured  to  advance  their  own  Sy/Iems,  by  depreciating  and 
running  down  thofe  of  others  +  :     And  this,  in   their,  and  in  their 

♦    P.  164,  1C5.  I  p.iii.  +   See  The  Divine  Legal,  vol.1,  p.431— 434. 

Advocates 


REMARKS    ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D.  173 

Advocates  Opinion,  was  ajlrartge  and  unjujlifiiible  Method.  And  how 
fhoiild  he  think  otherwife  r  when  he  has  fo  mean  an  Opinion  of 
the  Caufe  of  Revelation,  as  to  tell  us  prefently  after.  That  mofl:  of 
that  vafl:  number  of  Books  that  have  been  wrote  to  prove  the  Ne- 
ccffity  and  Excellency  of  our  holy  Religion,  are  thought  very  mean 
and  inlufficient  by  the  unprejudiced  and  inqulfitive  Adverfary,  but 
appear  in  a  very  different  Light  to  the  Mob  of  Chriftians,  who,  by 
the  happy  Prejudice  of  Education,  have  been  brought  up  to  doubt 
of  nothing.  But  hear  him  in  his  own  more  emphatic  Words  :  The 
vajl.  number  of  Books  and  Pamphlets  which  have  of  late  Tears  bcenfo 
f  lent  fully  poured  out^  to  prove  the  Necejity  afid  Excellency  of  our 
holy  ReligioHy.  certainly  deferve  the  Jipprobation  and  Thanks  of  every 
%ealous  and  truly  devout  Chrijlian :  And  though  many  of  tbefe  Per" 
formanccs  have  been  thought  by  the  Adversar.y:  very  mean 
AND  INSUFFICIENT,  yet  they  have  appeared  in  a  quite  difereut 
Light  in  the  Eyes  of  the  Bulk  of  Mankind ',  who,  from  the  happy 
Cast  of  their  Nativity,  have,  in   their  earliest  age,- 

F.EEN.  taught   TO  FORM  A  MUCH  BETTER  JUDGMENT  OF  TlIlNGS; 
A'XD    WHO,      SELDOM     HAVING    ANY    DoUBTS      OR      ScRUPLES      TO 

DISTURB   TiiEM,   are  therefore  the  eafer  ccrfnncd  in  the  quiet  and: 
full  Per fuafion  of  thefe  Dotirincs  they  at  first  received  *.. 

Had  I  not  Reafon  to  fay  as  I  did,  "  That  the  Fleathen  Philofo- 
"  phers  of  our  Times  might  be  well  e-xcufed  in  being  angry  to  fee 
'*■  their  ancient  Brethren  fliewn  for  Knaves  in  Pradice,  and  Fools 
"  In  Theory;  but  that  any  elfe  (hould  think  themfelves  concerned. 
"  in  tli'j  Force  and  Fidelity  of  the  Drawing,  was  a  Myftery  1  did. 
•'  not  know  what  to  ir.ake  oft  ?" 

It  is  thereforeMatter  of  much  Confolation  to  mc,  to  find  that  llic 
real  Friends  of  Revelation  have  at  length  left  thefe  Heathen  Philofo- 
fhers  (the  Men  whom  only  it  concerns)  to  difpute  this  Point  with 
me.  I  have  now  got  a  Gentleman  Freethinker  under  my  Hands ;, 
and,  if  thofe  other  Folks  will  be  but  eafy,  I'll  promife  to  give  a  good* 
Account  of  him. 

*  P.  iii.  iv,  -J-  Divine  Legat.  vol,  II.  p.  136. 

GuiT 


,;4  KEMARKS    ON    TILLARD. 

Our  CcK,1J(rer  proceeds  to  fliew  the  Reafons  why  feme  Defenders 
ot"  Chril^ianlty  will  not  acknowledge  the  Doaiiue  contained  in  his 
l^ook.  He  graciouOy  acquits  them  of  all  Malice  and  Defign,  and 
throws  it  firll, 

1.  Upon  their  Ignorance.  The  firjl  of  ivh'icb  is  the  Ignorance, 
in  this  particular,  of  by  far  the  greatefl  Part  of  them  [Defenders 
of  Chriftianity]  -who  really  do  not  knoiv  that  Rewards  and  Pump- 
ments  in  another  Life  are  any  where  fpoken  of  but  in  the  NcwTef- 
tamcnt,  unkfs  it  be  in  fome  dark  and  figurative  'Terms,  which  (as  if 

THERE  WERE  NONE  SUCH  AMONGST     THEMSELVES)    they   think    they 

have  a  Right  to  laugh  at  and  expofi.  They  remember,  perhaps,  fome 
Stories  in  their  School-books  of  Elyfium,  of  Tartarus,  rf  Cerberus, 
tic.  and  conclude,  veryhajiily,  that  this  was  all  that  iz'as  ever  thought 
of  or  believed  by  the  Heathens  concerning  a  World  to  come  *.  It  was 
not  for  nothing,  we  find,  that  he  defpifed  the  Defenders  of  Chrif- 
tianity as  Scribblers,  whom  none  but  a  prejudiced  Mob  would  give 
any  Credit  to :  For  the  far  greatejt  Part  of  them,  it  feems,  knew 
no  more  of  Antiquity  than  a  few  Stories  in  their  School-books.  But 
who  can  enough  admire  the  Modefly  of  this,  in  one,  who  confelTes 
he  has  forgot  his  Greek,  and  this  only  in  order  to  infinuate  that  he 
has  fome  Latin  which  yet  fticks  by  him  ? 

2.  He  throws  it,  Secondly,  Upon  their  Prejudices,  that  is,  their 
great  Attachment  to  their  own  Religion.     On  this  Head,  he  talks  I 

don't  know  what of  captivated  Lovers — pious  Zeal — Prejudice  of 

Education — Interefl — Preferment ;  In  fhort  the  common-Dog-trot 
of  Infidelity  and  Freethinking. 

After  this  Specimen  of  his  Modefy,  he  prefents  us  with  one  of 
his  Abilties.  As  to  what  relates  (fays  he)  to  the  Subjedl  of  the  fol- 
lowing Sheets,  the  Cafe  in  Fa£i  is  this.  It  is  indifputably  true,  and 
beyond  all  reafonabie  ContradiSlion,  that  the  Doblrine  of  future  Rewards 
and  Punijhments  is  clearly  and  plainly  delivered  and  laid  down  in  the 
New  T foment :  And  it  is  as  indifputably  true,  and  beyond  all  reafon- 

*    P.  V. 

abk 


REMARKS     ON     TILLARD.  175 

cble  Contradiction^  that  the  Do^r'ine cf future  Rcviiards  and Puntpnufiti 

IS    CLEARLY   AND    PLAINLY    DF.LIVERED    AND  LAID   DOWN  /«    the 

Books  and  Writings  of  the  Heathens.  The  Truth  of  which  Poin  r 
is  now  fubmitted  to  the  Judgment  of  every  impartial  Reader  *.  Tliis 
indifputable  Point,  which  he  writes  a  Book  to  prove,  is,  I  believe, 
flridly  fo.  At  leafl:  it  was  never  difputed  by  his  humble  Servant. 
On  the  contrary,  I  have  faid,  the  Heathen  Philofophcrs  Wcr^^&^r^^- 
tually  inculcating  to  the  People  the  Do^rine  of  a  future  Slate  of  Re- 
wards and  Punifhmsnts  in  their  Dfcourfes  and  IFriiings  f .  But  his- 
Title-page  profefles  to  prove /,6f  Truth  of  a  very  different  PJnt^  not 
quite  fo  indifputable.  Future  Rewards  and  Punifmients  believed  /^v 
the  Ancients,  particularly  the  Phibfophers,  lohcreinfome  Objections  of 
the  Reverend  Mr.  VV.  in  his  Divine  Legation  of  Moses  are  confdcrcd. 
Thus  we  fee  this  able  Writer  has  miftaken  his  Queftion  before  he 
be  got  to  the  End  of  his  Preface.  Dm  me  dc  contlenda  con  qulen  m£ 
entlenda,  {ays  the  SpaniOi  Proverb,  God  grant  me  an  Adverfary  that 
vndcrfands  me.  But,  wretch  that  I  am,  at'ter  having  met  with  fuclv 
an  Adverfary,  I  am  now  forced  to  contend  with  one  that  docs  not 
underftand  himfelf. 

His  Preface  concludes  thus  :  1  thought  once  to  have  changed  the 
Order  In  which  the  Rotations  of  the  fecond  Chapter  are  puiced.  Bur 
Method  in  such  Cases  depending  almost  as  much  upon  the 
Fancy  of  every  Reader  as  the  real  Propriety  of  the 
Thing  itself,  I  chofe  rather  to fubmit  them  as  they  are  %,  Sec.  By 
thefe  his  frank  Sentiments  of  Method,  it  appears  he  has  forgot  his 
Logic  too,  if  ever  he  had  any,  as  well  as  his  Creel:,  which,  he  tells 
us,  he  had  negleBed,  like  Lord  Chief  fufice  Hale,  by  a  long  Avoca- 
tion to  Studies  of  quite  another  Nature  §.  Whatever  his  Studies  were, 
he  can  fcarce  perfuade  the  Reader  to  think  them  like  Lord  Chief 
Jrfice  Hale's.  That  learned  Man  indeed  lofl  h\s,  Greek,  but  got  a 
great  deal  oi  good  Senfe.  Our  Author  too  has  loft:  his  Greek.  And 
what  has  he  got  ?  Miirry,  the  Knack  of  writing  without  any  Senfe 
at  all. 

*  P.  vii.         t  Divine  Legit.  Book  III.  §  2.  VoU  II.  p.  8,         |  V.  \k-         ^  P.  viii. 

II.  We 


,7$  REMARKS     ON    TILLARD. 

11. 

W'c  come  now  to  his  pfi  Chapter,  the  only  one  that  I  am  con- 
cerned in  ;  and  therefore  the  only  one  I  (hall,  at  prefent,  give  my- 
fjlt  the  Trouble  of  confideriiig.  As  juft  before  he  had  innocently 
blundered  out  of  the  Queftlon  ;  fo  now  by  entering  on  his  Atten- 
dance on  the  Author  of  The  Divifie  Legation,  he  has  as  innocently 
blundered  into  it :   And  thus  has  fet  all  right  again. 

After  having  frankly  told  the  Reader,  that  the  Author  of  TJje 
Divine  Legation  had  not  the  direSi  and  immediate  Difcovcry  of  Truth, 
and  the  real  and  substantial  Imprcvement  of  Mankind  [/.  e.  the 
Recommendation  of  Pagan  Philofophy]  in  his  Thoughts  and  Studies, 
but  the  Advancement  of  a  certain  favourite  Scheme  *  [/.  e.  of  Revela- 
tion] he  goes  on  to  t  quote  the  Apologies  I  make  for  venturing  to 
xleny  a  commonly  received  Opinion.  On  which  he  thus  defcants : 
By  all  which,  and  indeed  his  tvhole  manner  of  treating  this  SubjeSl,  he 
plainly  d'fcovers  fuch  a  great  Difrufl  of  his  Arguments  and  Conch  fans 
to  convince  the  Judgment  of  his  Reader^  that  |,  &c.  I  am  a  very 
unlucky  Writer.  If  lexprefs  myfelf  with  Confidence,  I  am  fuppoled 
to  diftruft  other  Men's  Opinions ;  if  with  Diffidence,  my  own.  But 
let  him  reft  himfelf  content.  I  am  under  no  manner  of  Diffidence. 
Or,  if  1  had  any,  his  writing  againft  me  had  eafily  removed  it. 
However,  in  this  I  fliall  never  recriminate.  I  confefs,  he  writes  all 
the  way  as  much  without  Ff^r  as  Wit. 

Ipall  (fays  our  crafty  Advocate)  pafs  over  his  nice  Dijiin^ions, 
Divifions,  a»d  Subdivifions  §.  Now  this,  I  cannot  but  think  hard. 
He  had  before  made  his  Exceptions  to  Greek,  and  I  dare  fay  he 
would  think  it  unfair  to  have  it  urged  againft  him  after  he  had  fo 
fairly  pleaded /^«5r^/««j  to  it  j  yet  a  critical  Ufe  of  that  Language  is 
alone  fufficient  to  determine  a  de;ifive  Queftion  in  this  Controverfy, 
namely,  of  the  Spinozifm  of  the  ancient  Philofphers :  And  here  he 
xlebars  me  all  Benefit  oi  Logic,  and  won't  have  Patience  while  I  ftate 
the  Queftion,  and  divide  the  Subjeft.     Ifallpafs  over  (fays  he)  his 

'^'■''^'  tP.  2,  3.  J  p.  3.  ^jbid, 

nice 


REMARKS    ON     T  I  L  L  A  R  D.         777 

fi'ice  "Dtfthidliom,  DiviJtonSy  and  Subdivifions.  So  tiiat  bccaufe  lic 
knows  neither  Greek  nor  Method^  I  fliall  ufe  none.  Here  then 
I  might  f;;irly  dilmifs  this  7ninute  Philofophcr,  who  dares  me  to 
the  Combat,  and  yet  excepts  agalnfl  all  the  Weapons  in  Ufe, 
But  not  to  difappoint  the  Company  we  have  brought  together, 
I  will  accept  his  Challenge,  and  ilght  him  with  his  own  wooden 
Dagger. 

I  proceed  f  fiiys  he)  direilly  to  take  notice  of  tbofc  Reafons  lohich^ 
IN  MY  Apprehension,  any  laays  affedi  the  prefent  ^eJiion\  and 
tbefe,  I  think,  may  be  reduced  to  two.  ift,  '''■'That  the  Philofophers 
'*  held  it  lawful,  for  the  public  Good,  to  fay  one  Thing,  xvhen  they 
"■  thought  another,  arid  that  they  aSlually  did  fo,  adiy,  That  they 
"  held  fome  fundamental  Principles  of  Philofophy,  which  were  alloge- 
"  ther  inconfferit  with  the  DoStrine  of  future  Rewards  and  Punifj- 
"  ments  *."  But  furely.  If  he  will  needs  write  againft  me,  his 
Bufinefs  is  not  only  to  confider  what,  in  his  Apprchcnfion,  tends 
to  the  Proof  of  my  Point,  but  likewife  what  in  my  Apprehcnfion 
I  had  faid  does  fo.  For  Inftance,  in  his  Apprehenfion,  this  Argu- 
ment, That  the  Philofophers  held  it  lawful  in  general  to  fay  one  Thing, 
when  they  thought  another,  and  this,  that  they  aftually  didfo,  tends 
to  the  Proof  of  my  Point.  And,  /;;  my  Jpprehenfon,  this  other 
Argument  likewife,  That  the  Philofophers  aBed  on  the  above  Princi- 
ple, with  regard  to  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifjments,  the 
very  Dodlrinc  in  quejlion,  has,  at  leaft,  as  ftrong  a  Tendency  :  For 
which  Reafon  I  had  employed j^x-  large  Pages  to  inforce  it.  But  to 
all  this  my  Adverfary  has  thought  fit  to  fay — Nothing. 

However,  if  he  will  needs  confine  the  Strength  of  my  Difcourfc 
to  thofe  two  Points,  I  mufl:  be  content,  and  accept  the  befl  Terms 
hs,  can  be  brought  to.  Nor  will  the  Reader  perhaps  think  thefe 
bad  ones.  But,  alas !  he  yet  knows  little  of  our  Advocate.  Of  a 
hundred  Arguments  from  Reafon  and  Authority  which  fupport  thofe 
two  Points,  he  has  not  ventured  fo  much  as  at  a  Decimation',  and 

*  P.  3.  4. 
Vol.  VI.  A  a  his 


,73        REMARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  P. 

his  Attack  of  tliofc  K\v  he  fluiffles  off  in  {o  evafive  a  manner,  as- 
woulii  never  get  him  Viclory  in  the  Schools  *,  nor  hardly  Credit  at 
llic  B.ir.  But  what  would  he  not  do,  or  what  would  he  not  forbear 
to  do,  for  liis  Philofophcrs  ?  For  if  that  Set  of  modern  Heathens, 
as  lie  gravely  tells  us,  are  not  far  from  the  Kingdom  op 
God,  ivho  bc'.ng  really  in  good  eanicjl  in  the  Search  of  Truth,  have 
'without  Prejudice  conJiJered,  and  have  calmly,  ferionjly,  and  %vith  the 
utmojl  Diligence  examined  into  the  Obligation  of  the  feveral  Religions, 
or  SeJIs  of  Religion,  which  now  prevail  in  the  World ;  and  after  the 
maturcfi  Deliberation  are  fatifed  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  or 
immediately  divine  in  any  of  them  ;  but  that,  upon  the  Whole,  all  which 
they  contain  or  pretend  to  (except  what  relates  to  our  Duty  to  God, 
and  our  Obligations  to  Morality  J  is  merely  human  Invention,  and  the 
ProduSi  of  Defign,  of  Error,  or  of  Enthufafm  t-  If  thefe  be  fonear 
Day,  in  what  a  hopeful  Condition  are  thofe  of  the  elder  Houfe,  who- 
certainly  cannot  be  faid  to  have  rejedcd  tlie  Gofpel-;  though  fo 
ready  to  give  a  diligent  and difpafjionate  Examination  to  any  tiding  that 
would  afford  room  for  a  Difpute. 

III. 
But  we  muft  take  him  as  we  find  him,  and  be  thankful.  The 
Reader  will  fay  prcfently  we  have  Reafon.  For  he  now  proceeds 
to  the  Confutation  of  the  hrft  Point,  That  the  Phikfophers  held  it 
Id-wful,  for  public  Good,  to  fay  one  Thing,  when  they  thought  ano- 
ther. And  how  does  he  fet  about  it  ?  Truly  in  a  very  new  Way. 
By  PROVING  it  at  large,  from  the  fourth  to  the  fixteenth  Page: 
Which,  he  homflly,  for  iht  fecond  lime,  concludes  thus  :  All  which 
//,  in  Effea,  no  more  than  what  Mr.  Warburton  himfef  fays  +. 
Why,  no;  but  he  being  able  to  fay  it  fo  much  better,  had  a  Mind 
to  fliew  his  Parts.  And  now,  according  to  his  own  Confeflion, 
the  Phikfophers  holding  it  lawful,  for  the  public  Good,  to  fay  one  thing 
•when  they  thought  another ;  and  I  having  proved,  to  which  Proof 

*    P-   3«  t    P.    201,    202.  J    p.   i6^     ,y, 

he 


R  E  iM  A  R  K  S    ON    T  1  L  L  A  R  D.         179 

he  has  not  oppofed  a  fiiigle  Syllable,  that  they  praSllJed  this  Rule 
in  the  very  Point  in  ^tejlion,  the  Difpute  is  fairly  at  an  End.  This 
will  certainly  furprize  our  lefs  attentive  Readers  :  But  they  muft 
know,  all  this  good-natured  Pains  was  neither  for  their  Sakcs  nor 
for  mine,  but  for  his  dear  Philofophers,  The  Cafe  ftood  thus  : 
When  I  fpoke  of  the  double  Do^rlne,  I  confidered  the  Praftlce  of  it 
as  not  altogether  free  from  Blame.  Not  that  this  Reprefentatioti 
contributed  to  prove  it  pradlifed  in  the  Point  in  queftion,  but  be- 
caufe  I  thought  the  Reprefentation  true.  But  my  Adverfiry,  as 
we  fee,  having  taken  it  for  granted,  that  /  had  not  the  d'lreEl  and 
immediate  Difcovery  0/"  Truth  in  my  Thoughts  and  Studies^,  had 
nothing  left,  but  the  firft  Reafon  to  affign  for  my  Reprefentation, 
which  affeding  the  Credit  of  his  Mafters,  he  will  endeavour,  as 
great  an  Enemy  as  he  is  to  Divijions  and  Difiindlions,  to  d'ljllnguijh 
away  this  Opprobrium.  He  therefore  divides  the  Praftice  of  the 
double  DoSlrine  into  two  Sorts.  The  one,  a  little  criminal  :  Tlie 
other,  quite  free  from  Blame  \.  And  to  ftiew  his  Judgment,  in 
the  firft  Clafs  he  places  Priefts  and  Politicians  |,  and  in  ihe  /eco^nd, 
the  Chinefe  L'terati ^,  who,  taught  Atheifm  in  private;  and  Or- 
fheus  ||,  who  againft  his  Confcience,  as  he  fays,  taught  Polytheifm 
in  public.  But  the  Clafs  of  Innocents,  you  may  be  fure,  was  eredled 
chiefly  for  his  dear  Philofophers,  whofe  double  DoSlrine  he  impioufly 
compares  to  the  Pradices  of  the  ever  blefled  yi'ftis  **.  For  which  I 
remit  him  to  the  appointed  Defenders  of  Religion  :  who  will,  I  hope, 
give  him  due  Correftion  for  all  his  Infults  on  their  Ignorance  and  their 
School-Books. 

The  mighty  Argument  then  he  labours  with,  and  for  the  fake  of 
which  he  has,  before  he  was  aware,  given  up  the  whole  Caufe,  is 
this  :  "  The  Philofophers  Pradtice  of  the  double  DoSlrine  was  inno- 
"  cent  and  laudable:  therefore  it  could  never  be  employed  to  preach 
"  up  a  Future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments  in  Public,  and  to 

*  P.  I,  2.  t  ^-  "•  t  Il^i'J- 

§  P.  J2.  IIP.  13,  14.  "■  P.  30— 39. 

A  a  a  "  preach 


,So        R  E  M  A  R  ?:  S     ON     TILL  A  R  D. 

♦•  pronch  it  down  in  private." This,  1  Uippofe,  he  would  have 

faid,  h  ul  he  known  liow  to  exprels  his  own  Meaning.  Let  us  fee 
then  w!iat  Force  it  h:w  upon  his  Principles.  For,  as  much  as  he 
contends  tor  the  Propagation   of  Truth,  he  is  not  likely  to  die  a 

Martyr  to  it ;  as  you   mny  hear  by  his  talking. To  diflurb  the 

fuhllc  Pcjce,  to  break  the  Laws,  and  fruhlejlj/  to  expofe  ourfehcs  to 
nunlfcf:  Danger  for  the  fdh  of  propagating  cur  Religion,  seems  to 
CARRY  A  CONTRADICTION'  IN  ITSELF,  a?ui  woiild  jiced  no  Confuta- 
tion, if  the  mifakcn  Principles  and  Practice  of  a  few  Zealots  did  not 
inflame  fomc  People  to  think  oiherivife  *.  It  is  no  wonder  this  fliould 
raile  his  Indignation.  For  had  not  Chrijl  and  his  Apoftles  been 
guilty  of  the  very  Mifdemeanor  that,,  he  tells  us,  carries  a  Contra- 
diSlion  in  itfelf  (which,  whatever  it  means  in  his  Jargon,,  is  furely 
fomcthing  very  bad)  we  had  never  had  the  poor  Philofophers  at  this 
time  of  Day  fo  difgracefuUy  puHied  befide  the  Chair.  But  for  this, 
I  again  fend  him  to  be  difciplined  by  the  Defenders  nforefaid  ;  and 
go  on  to  try  his  Argument  on  his  own  Principle.  The  Philofophers,. 
as  he  confefles,  ufed,  for  the  public  good,  to  fay  one  thing  when  they 
thought  another.  They  faw  that  the  Dodlrine  of  a  Future  State  of 
Rewards  and  Punifliments  was  firmly  believed  by  the  People,  and 
of  infinite  Service  to  Society.  But  their  fpeculative  Opinions  led. 
them  to  rejeft  it.  What  was  to  be  done  ?  Telling  what  they 
thought  the  Truth  would  be  injurious,  on  the  Suppofition,  both  to 
Society  and  themfelves.  And  (as  he  affures  ws)  frttitlefsly  to  expofe 
one's  Jelf  to  manifejl  Danger  for  the  fake  of  propagating  one's  Religion, 
feems  to  carry  a  ContraditVion  in  itfelf  Here  then  their  Principle  of 
faying  one  thing  when  they  thought  another,  came  in  Pradice,  nothing 
being  left,  but  to  profejs  in  public,  and  believe  in  private.  But  he 
will  fay,  perhaps,  ihatfmcere  impartial  Inquirers  after  Truth,  like 
his  Philofophers,  could  not,  after  the  mof  careful  Examination,  rejed 
the  Dodrine  of  future  Rewards  and  Punifhments.  Why  not,  I 
afk  him  ?     They  might  be  as  coftive  of  Belief,  for  ought  he  knows,, 

*  P.  43. 


REMARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D.  1 8 1 

as  his  favourite  Clafs  of  Free-tlilnkers ;  who,  with  the  fame  Quali- 
fications, reje61;  all  Revelation  in  general.  But  it  ran  flrangely  in 
his  Head,  that  if  I  thought  the  Philofophers  prafliCed  tiie  double 
Do£trine  on  the  Point  in  queflion,  I  muft  needs  fuppofe  they  had 
nojixed  Principles. — But  it  is  very  unreajonable  (fays  he)  and  unjuft 
from  hence  to  conclude ^  that  they  who  dofo,  have  no  Belie j  of  their 
own,  or  that  they  think  all  Religion  whatever  the  Invention  of  defining 

Men  *     And  again So  that,  notwithflanding  their  double  DoBrine, 

they  had fiill fame  fxcd  ones  of  their  own  f .  Why,  thou  mighty  De- 
fender of  Heathen  Wifdom  !  who  ever  faid  they  had  not  !  Or  who 
but  fuch  a  Defender  would  not  have  feen,  that  all  the  force  of  my 
Argument  reds  upon  this  very  Truth,  that  they  had /.vW  Pr/«c/- 
-ples,  that  they  had  a  Belief  of  their  own  ? 

But  as  if  he  had  not  done  enough  in  this  obliging  way,  he  will 
go  on,  and  prove  for  me,  that  the  double  DoSlrine  was  not  about 
different  Opinions,  but  the  fame.  I  Indeed  thought  it  Incumbent 
on  me  to  (hew  this:  becaufe  it  was  bringing  my  Argument  home 
to  the  Point,  that  a  Future  State  was  one  of  the  Objeds  of  the 
double  DoSlrine.  But  how  it  could  be  made  to  ferve  his  Purpofe, 
was  quite  beyond  by  reach.  Judge  then  of  my  Surprize,  when  I 
faw  him  attempt  to  prove  it  at  large  ;  and  to  conclude  his  Proof. 
thus  :  //  appears  then  that  the  external  Dodlrine  related  to  the  fame 
thing  as  the  internal'^.  I  was  fome  time  at  a  lofs  for  his  Meanino- 
in  the  former  Cafe  :  but  here  I  gave  over  the  Search  as  defperate. 
Not  but  I  concluded  there  was  Mifchief  fomewhere..  At  ]aft  I 
found  this  (lender  thing  of  an  Argument  lie  lurking  under  a  Cc-^ 
nundrum.  I  don't  know  whether  it  will  bear  the  handling ;.  but 
at  prefent  it  hangs  together  thus:  '*  The  external  Do6lrlne  re- 
"  lated  to  the  fame  thing  as  the  internal.  Now  a  Future  State- 
*'  is  one  thing,  and  no  Future  State,  another.  Thefe  therefore 
"  being  two,  could  not  be  the  Obje£t  of  the  double  Doolrine,  which 
"  was  concerned  witli  one  thing  only."     But  our  Advocate  is  fa. 

*  P.  45-  +  P-  47-  t  I"-  -4. 

flu- 


,sj       k  e  m  arks   on   T  I  l  l  a  r  d. 

tar  from  being  able  to  make  a  good  Argument,  that,  to  the  Shame 
of  hii  ProfeJ/ion,  he  knows  not  liow  to  make  a  good  ^ibble.  For 
I  h;id  all  along  affirmed  the  Pliilofophers,  both  in  their  external 
and  internal  teaching,  held  a  Future  State  (here's  his  one  and 
ihi  fame  thing  tor  him  :)  In  their  external,  a  Future  State  ivitb 
Rewards  and  PunKhmentsj  in  their  interna/,  a  Future  State  w///j- 
c,v/  them. 

But  though  he  contends,  that  tbe  external  Doclrine  related  to  the 
fjine  thing  ivith  the  internal,  yet  it  does  not  (he  Aiys)  in  the  leojl  ap- 
■ptiir,  that  the  Phihjopbers  believed  one  thing,  and  taught  a  quite  con- 
t-ary  to  the  People  '*.  This  is  ftrange  indeed.  Thefe  Philofophers 
then  muft  be  like  their  Advocate,  and  teach  nothing,  Otherwife, 
it"  the  external  Teaching  was  for  the  People,  and  the  internal  what 
the  People  could  not  be  trufted  with,  and  botli  about  the  fame 
thing,  the  two  Ways  of  Teaching  muft  certainly  proceed  upon 
contrary  Propofitions.  But,  perhaps,  in  the  Humour  he  is  now 
in,  an  Authority  may  be  better  liked  than  a  Reafon.  I  will 
give  him  one  above  all  Exception  :  His  own.  In  another  Place  he 
tells  us,  //  did  fully  appear,  that  the  Philofophers  believed  one  thing, 
and  taught  a  quite  contrary  to  the  People  ;  for  he  fays the  ex- 
ternal THEREFORE  MUST  BE  JUST  THE  REVERSE  [to  the  internal] 

■WITH  RELATION   TO  THE  SAME  POINTS  t« 

IV. 

Our  Advocate  iiath  given  me  fo  little  room  to  quarrel  with  him 
on  this  Head,  that  the  Reader  muft  needs  have  had  a  very  poor 
and  meagre  Entertainment.  Nothing  but  a  ftill-born  Blunder,  and 
the  Ghoft  of  a  departed  Quibble.  He  muft  therefore  be  content 
to  make  out  his  Treat  with  what  cold  Scraps  I  can  pick  up  from 
the  over-foddcn  Crambe  of  his  Logic  and  Literature. 

In  the  fifth  Page  he  fays,  Mr.  Warburton  expresses  himjelf  very 
AMBIGUOUSLY,  uhere  he  aferts  that  they  held  it  lawful,  for  the  public 

*  r.  .9.  +  P.  .4. 


REMARKS     ON    T  I  [.  L  A  R  D.         1^3 

good,  to  fay  one  thing  when  they  t bought  another.  Fur,  in  the  pre- 
Jent  ^ejlion,  if  we  iinderfiand  by  this,  that  the  Philofphers  believed 
a  Future  State  in  a  [pi ritual,  rejned,  and  rational  Senfe,  while  they 
fomelitnes  countenanced  the  People  in  their  gro/s,  vulgar,  and  ccrpo- 
real  Notions  of  it,  then  ivhat  he  lays  dozvn  is  certainly  true  :  But  if 
we  underfland it,  as  he  intends  we  should,  that  the  Philofphers 
preached  the  Do6lrine  of  a  Future  State  to  the  People,  while  themfelves 
believed  the  contrary,  viz.  that  there  was  710  future  State  of  Rewards 
and  Punifiments  at  all  i  then  his  Charge  on  the  Philofphers  is  abfoluiely 
falfe. 

The  Logic  of  this  incomparable  Period  ftands  thus  r 

1.  Firft;  I  talk  ambiguoufy,  because  it  is  ia  his  Power  to  mif- 
derfland  me  ;  for  in  the  prefent  Cafe  (fays  he)  ifws.  underfland,  &c. 
not  becaufe  of  any  thing  I  myfelf  faid,  or  omitted  to  fay.  For 
when  I  afferted  what  he  here  lays  to  my  Charge,  I  had  added, 
that  the  Philofphers  preached  the  DoSirine  of  a  future  State  of  Re- 
liwds  and  Piinif.mients  to  the  People,  while  themfelves  believed  the 
contrary  •  and  repeated  it  fo  often  over,  that  this  Writer  him- 
felf,  who  accules  me  of  exprejfmg  myflf  ambiguoufy,  confefTes, 
ill  the  very  Attempt  to  prove  his  Accufation,  that  he  knows  rcif 
Meaning.  But  if  tve  underfand  it  (fays  he)  as  he  intends  we 
SHOULD 

2.  Secondly,  I  talk  ambiguoufy,  because,  in  his  Senfe  of  the 
Words,  they  are  true,  in  mine,  not  true. 

Thefe  are  fuch  Difcoveries  in  the  Art  of  Reafoning,  that  I 
could  almoft  wifh  the  Author  would  add  a  Chapter  of  ylmbi~ 
guities  to  our  common  Logics.  A  thing,  I'll  allure  !iim,  very  mucli 
wanted. 

In  his  feventeenth  Page  we  have  thefe  Words,  Kotwithflanding 
which  [viz.  the  double-do£trine],  the  Defgn  and  End  of  the  Phi-' 
lofophers  in  both,  was  fill  in  general  the  fame,  that  is,  to  improve 
Mankind  as  much  as  they  would  bear  -,  and  the  Doctrines  in  Sub- 
fance  and  at  the  bottom  were  all  along  one  and  the  fame  ;  Just  as 

true: 


,8+         R  i:  M  A  R  fC  S    O  N    T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

true  Chriftitnlty  may  now  be,  ibou^b  in  fame  Countries  fear ce  ciif- 
cernlHi-,  liner  overwhelmed  with  Legends,  falfe  Miracles,  hmige- 
-u-orjhip,  and  all  the  Trumpery  of  Popifo  Super fti lion. 

Here's  a  Period,  let  me  tell  you,  that  has  no  weak  Side  oi  Seifcy 
but  is  impenetrable  all  round.  Does  he  mean  that  the  external 
and  internal  Doarines  of  the  Philofophers  were  in  general  the 
fame,  iujl  as  pure  Chriftianity,  and  corrupt  Chrlltiauity  over- 
iv/jehned  ivitb  Legends,  falfe  Miracles,  Image- worpip,  and  all  the 
Trumpery  of  Pop'fj  Superjlition,  are  in  general  the  fame?  Or  does 
he  mean  that  the  external  and  internal  Dodtrines  of  the  Philofo- 
phers were  both  to  improve  Mankind  as  much  as  they  could  bear, 
juJI  as  pure  Chriftianity,  and  corrupt  Chriftianity  ovorwhelmed  with 
Legends,  falfe  Miracles,  Image-worpip,  and  all  the  Trumpery  of 
Popif}  Supe'Jlition,  are  both  to  improve  Mankind  as  much  as 
they  can  bear  ?  Or  laftly,  which  perhaps  fliould  have  been 
nfked  firft,  had  he  any  Meaning  at  all  ?  However  it  is  every  Way 
fo  profound,  that  I  fhould  advife  him  to  add  a  Chapter  oi Comparifons 
to  his  Chapter  of  Ambiguities,  that  the  one  may  furnifli  us  with 
Examples  to  fit  his  Rules  in  the  other.  This  (hall  fuffice  at  prefent 
for  a  Specimen  of  his  Art  of  Reajoning. 

Let  us  turn  to  his  Literature,  and  fee  firft  how  he  manages  liis 
Latin  Tranjlations. 

He  gives  us  the  following  Quotation  from  Elian's  Various  Hif 
tory  *  :  Ita  vera  etiam  Socratem  non  explicile  differere  ;  f  quis  autem 
eas  Differtationes  convertat,  planijimas  eje  ;  and  tranflates  it 
thus  :  Socrates  ufed  to  talk  ambiguoufly  ;  but  if  any  one  turns  and 
SIFTS  his  Difcourfes  with  Attention,  they  will  appear  mofi  plain 
and  eofy  -j-. 

The  Reader  will  feek  to  no  Purpofe  in  the  Latin  for  fifts  %vith 
Attention  ;  but  this  was  the  Paraphrafe  of  a  Word  he  did  not  un- 
derftand,  convertat,  ^(i^^,^  ufed  by  the  Author  in  nllufion  to  its 
literal,  not  figurative  Senfe.     Mlian  had  juft  before  told  a  Story  of 


one,  a  Conmijj'eur  like  our  Advocate,  who  would  needs  have  a  Horfe 
painted  rollhig  on  his  Back.  The  Artift  brought  him  a  running 
Horfe ;  which  not  contenting  him,  the  other  put  it  into  the  Pol- 
ture  required,  by  turning  the  Picture  upfide  down.  Turn  Socrates 
thus,  fays  MHariy  and  you  have  his  true  Meaning.  That  is,  ««- 
derjland  him  by  Contraries.  And  this  Rule  was  given  with  Judg- 
ment. For  Socrates  being  perpetually  ironical^  take  liim  in  the  re- 
verfe,  and  he  is  in  his  right  Senfes.  But  our  Advocate  knew  as 
little  oi  Socrates' s  Charader  as  of  his  Tranflator's  Latin.  "  Paufo' 
*'  nem  enim  PiSlorem^  quuvt  auJiviJfet  a  quodam,  ut  'uolutantem  fc 
*^  equtwi  pingeretf  cur  rent  em  eiim  pinxijj'e .  ^um  igitur  is  qui  tabulam 
*^  pingendiim  locciraf^  indignaretiir^  tanquam  contra  padium  ille pinx- 
*'  ijfet,  rofpo?idiJJe  Pi£iorev3,  verte  [ot<  rf-^^^o-']  Tabulam,  ^  ita  volu- 
*^  tans  tibi  ejio  Equus,  qui  nunc  eji  currens.  Ita  vero  etiam  Socrateni 
*'  non  explicit}  dijferere  ;  ft  quis  autem  eas  Dijfertationes  convertat 
*'  [s-/36ip£;l  planij/imas  ejfe.'^  Let  us  now  fee  how  ably  he  acquits 
himfelf  of  his  Original  Writers. 

He  brings  a  Paflage  from  Macrobius  in  thefe  Words,  Si  quid  de 
his  ajfignare  conantur,  quce  non  fermonem  ta?Uummodo,  fed  cogitationem 
quoque  humanam  fuperant,  ad Jimilitudines  G?  exempla  confugiunt. — Sic 
ipfa  Myjleria  jigurarum  cuniculis  operiuntur  ;  ne  vel  hcec  adept  is  nuda 
rerum  taliiimfe  Natura  prabeat  ;  fed  Summatibus  tantum  Viris  Sapi- 
cntia  Interprete  veri  Arcani  confciis  ;  contentifmt  Reliqui  ad  veneratio- 
nemfguris  defendenlibus  a  vilitate  fecretum,  i.  Macrob.  2.  Ed,  Lond, 
1694.  Which  he  tranflates  thus,  *'  to  the  same  Purpose  Macros 
**  bius^  fpeaking  of  God  and  Nature,"  fays,  The  Philofophers  when 
*'  they  treated  of  fuch  SubjeSls  as  were  beyond  all  our  Words,  and  ex- 
ceeded  even  our  Thoughts,  they  had  Recourfe  to  Similies  and  Allufons. 
For  that  these  Things  were  as  Mysteries,  which  the 
Wise  only  were  capable  of  receiving  ;  but  that  others 
fmdd  be  content  with  an  awful  Veneration  for  them  under  the 
Veil  of  Figures  and  Allegories^  lest  they  should  be  despised  *. 

*  P.  20. 
Vol,  VI.  B  b  This 


jSA  Rn]MAr.rv3      WIN        1    I  i^  i^ /\  K  iv. 

This  comes  of  Frn-(/:inkhis,  and  leaving  his  School-boohs  to  the 
C/^T.^v:  who  owe  him  a  Shame  for  that  contemptuous  Donatiou  *. 

1.  We  fee  here,  he  makes  the  Words,  Si  quid  de  bis  ajjignarc  co- 
nantur,  to  confugiunt,  to  relate  to  the  double  Do£lrine  of  thePliilofo- 
phcrs,  as  is  evident  by  this  Jntrodudion,  To  the/am  Purpo/e  Ma- 
crobius.  To  what  Purpofe,  I  befeech  you  ?  Why,  to  the  Purpofe 
of  Burners  Words  immediately  preceding,  which  exprefsly  treat  of 
the  Nature  of  the  fwofold  DoSirine  of  the  Ancients.  But  who  but  a 
Freethinker  would  not  have  found  that  thefe  of  Macrohius  relate  to 
a  quite  different  thing?  namely,  the  Inability  of  expreffing  fpiritual 
and  abftraft  Ideas  any  otherwife  than  by  Words  conveying  fenfible 
and  material  Images.  Not,  like  the  external  DoSirine,  a  Matter  of 
Choice,  but  Ncce[fuy  ;  a  Neceffity  arifing  from  the  Nature  of  Things. 
A  Way  of  fpeaking  the  Philofophers  could  not  avoid,  even'  when 
conveying  their  internal  DoSlrine  to  their  Adepts.  But  now  the 
Reader  will  be  apt  to  afk,  If  this  be  fo,  as  is  evident  even  from 
the  Words  themfelves,  what  muft  we  do  with  the  reft  of  the  Paf- 

fage,  beginning  at  Sic  ipja  Myjleria which  does  indeed  relate  to 

the  double  DoSlrine ;  for  it  gives  a  Reafon  why  Men  have  Recourfe  to 
Similies  and  AUuJions,  a  Reafon  founded  in  the  Nature  and  Expe- 
diency of  the  double  DoSlrine?  What  fliall  I  fay?  that  our  Advo- 
cate has  wilfully  murdered  and  difmembered  poor  Macrohius  ?  or, 
that  it  was  mere  Chance-medley  ?  Let  the  Reader  determine.  It 
is  fufficient  he  be  made  to  know,  that  the  latter  Part  of  the  Quo- 
tation, beginning  at  6/f  ipf a  Myjleria,  has  no  other  Relation  to  the 
former  Part,  beginning  at  Si  quid  de  his  aj/ignare,  than  is  between 
two  Things  fct  in  direft  Oppofition  to  one  another. 

2.  Macrobius  had  obferved,  that  the  Philofophers  did  not  admit 
the  fabulous  in  all  their  Difputations  ;  but  in  thofe  only  which  re- 
lated to  the  Soul,  the  Heavenly  Bodies,  and  the  Hero-Gods. 
On  the  contrary,  when  they  difcourfed  of  the  Fir/l  Caufe,  and  the 
Mind  proceeding  from  him,  that   then  every  thing  was  delivered 

*  See  the  Qiiotation,  at  p.  174, 

agreeably 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD.  1S7 

-igrceably  tp  f1:ri£l  Truth — "  Sciendum  ejl  tamen  non  in  omnem  D'tf- 
*'  pHtalionem  Pbilofophos  admittere  fahulofa  vel  licit  a  *,  fed  his  uti 
'■'■  Jhlent^  cum  vel  de  anima^  vel  de  tEkiis,  ^theriisve  Potes- 
"  TATiBus,  vel  de  ceteris  Dis  loquuntur.  Ceterum  cum  ad  fum- 
*'  mum  &  principem  Omnitnn  Dcum,  qui  apud  Greecos  t  ayocQov  qui 
"  ■sTpHrov  MTiov  nuncupalur,  traSlaius  fe  audet  altollere  ;  vel  ad  Men- 
*'  tern,  quam  Graci  ySv  appellant,  Originales  rerum  Jpecies,  qua  lliai 
*'  diilafunty  continent  em,  ex  fummo  not  am  &?  profeSlam  Deo:  Cuin 
*'  de  his,  inquam,  loquuntur,  Summo  Deo  &  Mente,  nihil  fabulofum 
<■'■  peniius  attingunt."  But  then  he  immediately  fubjoins,  in  the 
Words  in  Queftion,  that,  though  here  they  fpoke  nothing  but  the 
Truth,  yet,  by  Reafon  of  the  high  Abflraftion  and  fpiritual  Nature 
of  the  Subject,  they  were  unavoidably  at  a  lofs  for  adequate  Ex- 
preffions,  and  therefore  obliged  to  fpeak  figuratively,  that  is,  make 
ufe  of  fenfible  and  material  Images.     Sed  si  quid  de  his  assig- 

KARE  CONANTUR,  Q\JX.  NON  SeRMONEM  TANTUMMODO,  SED 
COGITATIONEM  QUOCiyE  HUMANAM  SUPERANT,  AD  SlMIHTUDI- 
NES  ET  EXEMPLA  CONFUGIUNT. 

When  Macroh'us  had  faid  this,  and  illuftrated  the  lafl  Obferva- 
tion  by  an  Example  from  Plato,  he  goes  on  to  the  other  Part  of 
his  Subject,  namely,  to  tell  us  how  the  Philofophers  managed  when 
they  treated  of  the  other  Gods  and  the  Soul ;  then  (he  fays)  they 
admitted  of  the  fabulous ;  not  childiflily,  or  to  pleafe  a  wanton 
Imagination,  but  becaufe  they  knew  that  expofing  Nature,  naked  as 
llie  was,  would  be  greatly  injurious  to  her.  Who,  as  flie  with- 
draws herfelf  from  the  Knowledge  of  the  Vulgar  by  her  various 
Covering  and   DIfguife   of  Forms,  fo  it  is  her  Pleafure  that  the 

*  All  the  old  Editions  had  thefe  Words  vcI  Ini'tn :  the  more  modern,  not  knowing 
what  to  make  of  them,  fairly  fimk  them.  Gronovius  takes  notice  of  the  Fraud,  and 
reftores  them  to  their  Place,  but  in  order  finally  to  degrade  them  on  a  fair  Hearing. 
He  fays  they  are  corrupt,  and  fliould  be  read  nielfiHa.  But  Ikiia  is  the  genuine  Word, 
which  this  Critic  would  have  feen,  had  he  apprehended  that  it  (ignlfied  thofe  theological 
Fables  allovjcd  of  iy  puhlic  Authority,  So  that  fahulofa  vel  licita  fignify  either  fuch  Fables  as 
the  Philofophers  themfelves  invented,  or  fuch  as  they  borrov-'cdfrom  the  popular  Belief. 

Bb  2  Philofophers 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD. 


Phllofophcrs  fhould  handle  her  Secrets  in  Fable  and  Allegory.— - 
•«  De  Dils  autem,  ut  dixl,  ceteris,  &  de  Anima  non  frQftra  fe,  nee 
*•  ut  oblciflent,  ad  Fabulofa  convertunt ;  fed  quia  fciunt  Inimicam 
*'  cfle  Natunc  apertam  nudamque  expofitionem  fiii :  quiS  ficut  vul- 
*•  garibus  Honiinum  fenfibus  intelleftuni  fui  vario  rcrum  tegmine 
«♦  oPERiMENTOQi'E  fubtraxitj  ita  a   prudentibus  Arcana  fua  voluit 

*'  per  Fabulofa  traftari." -Then  follow  the  reft  of  the  Words, 

whicli  Ihould  be  tranflated  thus:  So  the  Myjleries  themjelves  are  hid 
under  the  Deceits  of  figurative  Reprefentations,  leji  the  naked  Truth 
Jkould  obtrude  it/elf  even  on  the  Initiated.  But  ivhile  the  Greatefi 
M(n,  with  IVifdomfor  their  Guide ^  are  confcious  of  the  true  Secret ; 
the  reji  may  be  'well  cofitent  ivithfuch  Reprefentations  as  fecure  the  dig- 
n'ty  of  the  Secret^  and  are  contrived  to  excite  their  Veneration.  Src 
IPSA  Mysteria  Figurakum  Cuniculis  operiuntur,  ne  vel 

H.EC    ADEPTIS    NUDA    RERUM    TALIUM     BE    NaTURA    PR^BEAT  : 

Sed   summatibus    tantum  Viris,    Sapientia   Interprete, 

VERI    ArCANI    CONSCirs,      CONTENTI      SINT    RELIQUI    AD    VeNE- 

rationem  Figuris  defendentibus  a  Vilitate  Secretum, 
The  Reader  now  fees  that  this  Period,  and  the  other,  beginning 
with  5";  quid  de  his  ajjignare,  which  our  Advocate  had  tacked  to  it, 
are  fo  far  from  belonging  to  one  another,  that  the  firil:  defcribes 
the  unavoidable  Condition  that  attends  the  fpeaking  Truth  ;  the 
other  the  Advantages  that  may  be  reaped  from  lying.  But  as  ill  as 
he  underftood  the  Original,  his  own  bad  Tranflation,  methinks, 
might  have  informed  him,  that  the  two  Parts  of  the  Quotation 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  one  another,  they  are  fo  full  of 
Contradiaion.  The  firft  Part  fays,  the  high  Subjeds  there  fpokeu 
of  are  beyond  all  our  Words,  and  exceed  even  our  Thoughts.  The  fe- 
cond  Part  fays  no  fuch  Matter,  the  wife  are  capable  of  receiving  them. 
For  the  ref,  they  muft  do  as  they  can  ;  be  content  with,  I  do  not 
know  what,  an  azvful  Veneration^  &c.  But  more  of  this  Matter 
prefently, 

3.  For  1  have  not  yet  done  with  this  wondrous  Advocate  of  old 
Philofophy.     We  have  feen  how  he  has  acquitted  himfelf  as  to  the 

general 


REMARKS     ON    TILLARD.  189 

general  Purport  of  the  Slnotation :  Let  us  now  fee  whether  he  be 
equally  happy  in  the  Senfe  he  gives  of  the  Words  and  Phrafes. 

The  learned  Reader  perceives,  that  the  Words  laft  quoted,  Sic 
jpfa  Mxfieria,  &c.  are  an  Illuftration  nnd  Inforcement,  taken  from 
the  Pradlce  of  the  Myjlenes,  of  the  foregoing  Obfervation,  that  it 
•wijs  commendable  to  hide  fomc  things  under  Fables.  How  does  our 
Advocate  tranfiate  Sic  ipfa  Myjleria?  Thus,  For  these  Things 
WERE  AS  Mysteries.  So,  from  an  lllujlration  he  makes  it  an  Illa- 
tion :  And  Myjleria,  the  Rites  fo  called,  he  degrades  to  a  fimple  Se- 
cret.    Sic  for  —  Ipsa    these  Things — Mysteria  were   as 

Mysteries. A  hopeful  Scholar !     He  had  Reafou  to  upbraid  us 

Vii'Ca  X^LiQ  Memory  g{  o^:iX  School-hooh  * .  Well,  but  what  are  ihefe 
things  that  are  (o  like  Mvfteries  ?  Why,  even  by  his  own  Aocount, 
abjlracl  Ideas  exprejfed  in  metaphorical  T'erms.  According  to  this, 
the  Dictionary  fhould  be  the  moft  myjlerious  Book  in  the  World  : 
And  fo,  I  fuppofe,  our  Freethinker  found  it :  And  having  a  natural 
Averiion  to  Myjlerics,  he  turned  himfelf  to  Studies  of  quite  another 
Nature  -}■• 

The  next  Words,  Figurarum  Cunicidis  operiuntur,  he  has  pafTed' 
over  untranflated,  and  with  good  Reafon.  For  as  they  allude  to  the 
Sheiz'S  of  the  Myjieries  reprefented'm  fub terraneous  Places,  he  could 
have  no  kind  of  Conception  of  them.  The  next — ne  vel  hcec  Adeptis 
7iuda  rcrum  taliuin  fe  Natura  prabeat,  undergo  the  fame  Negledl ; 
and  on  the  fame  Account.  He  knew  not  what  to  make  oi  Adeptis, 
the  hitiated;  and  he  thought  too  it  contradi£ted 

The  next — Scd  Sujnmatibus  tantum  Viris,  Sapientia  Interpret^  veri 
Arcani  confciis.  Here  he  breaks  Silence,  and,  on  my  Word,  to  the 
Purpofe,  WHICH  the  Wise  only  were  capable  of  receiving, 
Sap'entia  Interprete,  the  Wife  only  are  capable  of  receiving.  Not- 
withftanding  the  Difference  of  Number,  it  is  plain  he  thought 
Sapientia  Interprete  was  put  in  Appofition  to  Summatibus  Viris.  He 
did  not  fee  the  Conftrudion  was  Summatibus  Viris  veri  Arcani  cen- 

*  See  p.  V.  of  his  Preface,  f  P.  viii.  of  the  Preface, 

fciis. 


J50  REMARKS    ON    TILLARD. 

ftui,  Saplcnt'ui  InWprete,  nor  that  the  Sapkntia  Intcrpres  alluded  to 
the  Iherc^'hant  of  the  Myjicries,  who  cxplahied  the  Secret  to  the 
nioll  capable  of  the  Initiated,  the  Summatibus  Viris ;  by  which 
Mjc'obius  meant  Heroes,  Princes,  Legiflators,  in  Allufiou  to  their 
old  Praflice,  of  feeklng  Initiation  into  the  greater  Myfleries  *.  And 
thole  he  had  diftinguiOied  from  the  reft  of  the  initiated,  by  the 
lbrc"oini'-  Words,  ne  vel  hac  Adeptis  niida  rerum  tal'mm  fe  Naiura 
prabeat. 

The  concluding  Words  are,  Contenti  fint  Reliqui  ad  Venerationem 
Tlguris  defenddntibus  a  Vditate  Secretum,  which  he  traaflates,  but 
that  others  Jhoidd  be  content  with  an  awpul  Veneration  for 
THELM,  under  the  Veil  of  Figures  and  Allegories,  lest  they  should 
BE  DESPISED.  What  is  meant  by  a  IForfiippers  being  content  with 
en  awful  Veneration  1  do  not  underftand  :  Much  lefs  his  being  con' 
tent  -juith  an  aiiful  Veneration,  lejl  the  things  venerated  flmuld  be 
defpijed.  The  Objeifl  luorjlnpped  indeed  may  be  well  enough  faid 
to  be  content  with  an  awful  Veneration,  lejl,  if  it  ftiould  be  unreafon- 
nble,  and  expeft  more,  it  might  come  to  be  defpifed.  But,  as  our 
profound  Tranflator  well  obferves,  Thefe  things  are  as  Myfleries, 
and  fo  we  will  leave  them.  However,  the  learned  Reader  fees  he 
took  contenti  fint  Reliqui  ad  Venerationem  Figuris,  to  be  the  fame  as 
contenti  fint  Reliqui  veneratione  Figurarum,  whereas  it  is  equivalent 
to  contenti  fint  Reliqui  Figuris  ad  Vefterationem  excogi talis  ;  and  fhould 
be  tranflated  thus  :  The  refl  may  be  "well  content  with  fuch  Reprefen- 
tatiom  as  fecure  the  Dignity  of  the  Secret,  and  are  contrived  to  excite 
their  Veneration.  What  muft  we  tliink  of  our  Advocate  ?  Does 
not  he  come  well  inftrufted  in  his  Caufe  ?  Which  ftiall  we  admire 
moft ;  his  Modefty,  his  Learning,  or  his  Good  Faith  ?  But  his 
tranfiations,  of  which  his  Book  is  almoft  all  made  up,  abound  with 
thefc  Beauties;  I  fhall  therefore  referve  the  Examination  of  them 
for  a  Work  by  itfelf,  and  leave  him  at  prefent. 

With  all  his  blufhing  Honours  thick  upon  him. 

*  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  \.  p.  243. 

V.  Our 


REMARKS"  ON    TILLARD.  191 

V. 

Our  Advocate  goes  on  to  the  fecond  of  the  Arguments,  which,. 
m  his  Apprehenfion,  affefls  the  prefent  Queftion  :  namely,  that  the 
Phihfophers  held  fome fundanmital  Pr'uidpks,  'which  were  altogether 
hiconfjait  with  the  Do^rine  cf future  Rewards  and  Fun'ijhments.  Of 
thefe  he  tells  us,  and,  indeed,  tells  us  fairly,  that  thefirji  was,  that 
God  could  neither  be  angry  nnr  hurt  any  one.  The  fecond^  that  the 
Soul  was  a  difccrped  Part  of  the  Whole,  and  that  this  whole  was  God, 
into  ivhom  it  was  again  to  be  refohed  *. 

Thefe  he  undertakes  to  examine  in  their  Order. 

Frora  thefiiji,  that  God  could  not  be  angry  nor  hurt  any  one,  I 
drew  this  Conclufion,  that, they  could  not  believe  a  future  State  of 
Rewards  and  Punifhments.  Which  I  endeavoured  to  fupport  from 
a  Pafiiage  in  TuUys  Offices  to  this  Effeft.  The  Writer  is  commend- 
ing Regulus  for  keeping  his  Oath.  But  (fays  he)  it  may  be  objed- 
ed,  what  is  there  in  an  Oath  ?  The  Violator  need  not  fear  the 
Puniftiment  of  Heaven,  for  all  the  Philofophers  hold  that  God 
cannot  be  angry  nor  hurt  any  one.  To  this  Tully  replies,  and  owns 
that  indeed  it  was  a  Confequence  of  the  general  Opinion  of  God's 
not  being  angry ,  that  the  perjured  Man  had  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  divine  Vengeance.  But  then  it  was  not  this  Fear,  which  was 
indeed  nothing,  but  Juftice  and  good  Faith  which  made  the  real 
San6lion,  or  moral  Obligation  of  an  Oath,  "  Quid  eft  igitur,  dix- 
"  erit  quis,  in  Jurejurando  ?  Num  iratum  timemus  Jovem  ?  At 
*'  hoc  quidem  commune  eft  omnium  Philofophorum,    numquam  nee 

"  irafci  Deum,  nee  nocere Htec  quidem  Ratio  non  magis  contra 

<*  Rcgulum  quam  contra  omne  Jusjurandum  valet :  fed  in  Jureju-^ 
"  rando  non  qui  Metus,  fed  quae  Vis  fit,  debet  intelligi.  Eft  enini; 
*'  Jusjurandum  Affirmatio  religiofa.  Quod  autem  affirmate,  quafi 
*' Deo  Tefte,  promiferis,  id  tenendum  eft:  jam  enim  non  ad- 
"  Iram  Deorum,  quae  nulla  eft;  fed  ad  Juftitiam  &  ad  Fidemi 
"  pertinet  +•" 


P.  47.  t  JDs  onk.  1.  3.  c.  2S,  29. 


i.N< 


,92  REMARKS     ON    TILLARD. 

I.  Now  what  lays  our  Advocate  to  this?  Upon  the  whole  of 
this  Auticnty  (he  lays)  /  think  it  appears  thai  the  Objector  rightly 
atiJ  an  Opinion  of  the  Fhilofophers,  but,  miftaklng  the  true  Mean- 
ing, dreiv  a  wrong  Conclufion  from  it.     Tully,  not  troubling 

HIMSELF  TO  CONFUTE  OR  SET  HIM  RIGHT,  goeS  OU  with  his  PurpofCy 

and  proves  the  intrinfc  Sacrednefs  and  Obligation  of  an  Oath,  without 
regarding  the  Circumflances  of  Hope  or  Fear  *.  What  an  Idea  has  he 
here  given  us  of  this  great  Reafoner  !  I'tilly  thinks  an  Objeaor 
worth  taking  notice  of,  and  yet  will  not  trouble  himself  to 
CONFUTE  HIM.  Without  doubt  our  Advocate  here  compared  Tully 
to  himfclf  for  reafoning ;  as  before  he  had  compared  himfelf  to 
Chief  Juftice  Hale  for  Greek.  And  becaufe  he  can  write  books 
againft  an  Objector  '\-  without  troubling  himfelf  to  confute  him,  he 
thought  Tully  might  do  fo  too.  But  the  beft  of  the  Story  is,  that 
t\\\s  ObjeSlor  proves  to  be  Tullfs  own  felf:  Dixerit  quis,  a  Man 
might  perhaps  obje^  (fays  he).  And  fure  Tully  did  not  mijiake  the 
true  meaning  of  a  common  Opinion.  And  as  for  a  voluntary  SHp,  it 
was  not  His  Way,  as  it  is  this  Author's,  to  make  Blunders,  and 
pals  them  off  for  other  Men's,  with  a  dixerit  aliquis.  But  itfeems, 
Tully  not  only  miflook  the  true  Meaning,  but  drew  a  wrong  Conclu- 
fton  from  it.  This  is  hard.  And,  harder  flill,  he  had  not  the 
Patience  to  flay  and  fet  himfelf  right.  But  fure,  if  he  had  all  this 
Leifure  to  difcredit  his  own  Judgment,  by  inventing  wrong  Mean- 
ings, and  drawing  worfe  Conclufions,  he  would  have  found  time 
to  reftore  himfelf  to  his  Reader's  Opinion  by  confuting  them.  But 
then,  whether  the  Objedlion  was  Tullfs  or  another  Man's,  what  a 
low  Opinion  muft  Tully  have,  in  the  mean  time,  of  the  Importance 
of  a  Future  State  to  Society,  if,  in  a  Book  of  Offices,  he  would  not 
trouble  himjelf  to  confute  or  fet  an  ObjeBor  right,  whom  he  had 
brought  in  with  a  miftaken  Argument  that  overturned  itf  There 
is  indeed  a  Time  when  a  ferious  Writer  would  not  trouble  himfelf  to 
confute  or  fet  a  IVrangler  right.  And  it  is  fuch  an  one  as  this,  where 

*  P.  49-  t   See  his  Title-page, 

the 


REMARKS     ON    TILLARD.  193 

the  Perverfity  is  To  great,  as  to  become  an  Infultupon  every  Reader's 
Underftanding. 

2.  But  his  TranP,atton  Is  in  all  refpeds  as  curious  as  his  Comment. 
It  follows  ill  thefc  Words :  But  J'ome  one  vi'ight  object  and  fry,  that 
Regulus  need  be  under  no  Apprehenjxon  from  the  Breach  of  his  Oath,  of 
his  bei7ig punified  by  the  Gods,  f nee  it  is  a  well  known  saving 
amongfi  Philofophers,  That  God  cannot  be  angry.  "  Tu/fy,  in  anfwer 
*'  to  this,  fays"  that  this  might  be  a  Reafon  not  only  againfl  Regu- 
lus,  but  againfi  all  Oaths  lohatfoever  ;  for  (fays  he)  in  fwearing  it  is 
not  the  Fear  of  PtiniJJjment,  but  /Z^f  Efficacy  and  Importance 
of  it,  ivhlch  is  to  be  regarded;  for  an  Oath  is  a  religious  Affirmation 
made  in  the  Prefence  of  God,  and  as  fuch  ought  to  be  folemnly  obferved. 
To  conclude  then,  it  is  not  the  Anger  of  the  Gods,  which  is  nothing 
[in  the  present  Case]  but  Jujlice  and  Good  Faith  which  is  [im- 
mediately] to  be  RESPECTED  *. 

Hoc  quidem  commune  eji  omnium  Philofophorum,  fays  Tully.  It 
is  a  well-known  Saying  amongst  the  Philofophers,  fays  iiis 
Tranflator,  inftead  of,  this  is  a  Tenet  common  to  all  the  Philofophers, 
commune  Dogma,  Decretum, 

In  Jurcjurando  (iays  Tully)  non  qui  Metus,  fed  qua  \i%  fit  debet 
inteUigi.  In  fwearing  (fays  his  Tranflator)  //  is  not  the  Fear  of 
Punifoment,  but  the  Efficacy  and  Importance  of  it  which  is  to 
be  regarded.  The  pretended  Objedor  obferving  that  the  People 
were  chiefly  influenced,  in  their  Oaths,  by  the  Fear  of  Divine 
Puniftiment,  argues  againfl  the  Efficacy  of  Oaths  in  this  Manner. 
All  the  Philofophers  (fays  he)  hold  that  God  cannot  be  angry, 
therefore  he  cannot  punifli ;  confequently  Oaths  will  have  no  Effi' 
cacy,  or  there  will  be  nothing  in  an  Oath.  To  this  Tully  gives  i. 
plain  Anfwer.  The  Efficacy  of  an  Oath  (fays  he)  is  not  to  be  mea- 
fured  by  the  Degree  of  Fear  that  attends  the  taking  it,  but  by  the 
moral  Obligation  of  keeping  it,  that  is,  by  its  proper  San£iion.  In 
Jurcjurando  non  qui  Met  us,  fed  qua  Vis  ft  debet  intelligi.  Literally, 

*  P.  48,  49- 
Vol.  VL  Cc  in 


,94  REMARKS    ON    TILLARD. 

in/icfjthg  it  ought  to  be  cofifJered,  vot  %vkit  Fear  attends  it,  hut 
tvhf  SjKcIion  it  bath.  And  then  fliews,  this  Sana  Ion  to  be  good 
Faith.  All  here  is  clofe  and  well  argued.  Let  us  now  hear  how 
his  Tranflator  makes  him  reafon.  An  Oath  (fays  the  Objeftor)  is 
of  no  Efficacy  [quid  efl  in  Jurejurando  ?]  becaufe  Fear  is  no 
more.  Oh,  replies  Tully,  it  is  not  Fear,  but  the  Efficacy  and 
Importance  of  an  Oath  that  is  to  be  regarded.  Admirably  con- 
cluded. And  had  Tully  reafoned  thus,  I  fliould  have  believed  he 
h:{A  forgot  his  Greek  too,  and  turned  himfelf  to  Studies  of  quite  another 
Nature. 

But  the  Flower  of  Tranflations  is  the  following:  TuUy-;  Jam 
enim  non  ad  Iram  Deorum,  qlUje.  nulla  est.     His  Tranflator ;  Ta 
conclude  then,  it  is  not  the  Anger  of  the  Gods,  tvhich  /V  nothing  [iN 
THE  PRESENT  case]  S>ua  nulla  efl!     Here  he  believed  in  good 
earnefl:  that  qua  nulla  cjl  was  equivalent  to  qua;  nihil  ad  rem  pcrtinct: 
and  fo  it  may  be,  for  ought  I  know,  in  his  Law-Latin,  but  in 
Cicero^s,    it   fignifies   the    fame  as    y«^    vana   G"    commentitia    eft. 
Tuljy;  fed  ad  Juflitiam  &?  ad  Fidem  pertinet.     His  Tranflator; 
kiit   Jufiice  and  Good  Faith  which  is   [immediately]  to  be  re- 
spected.    Pertinet,  immediatrly  to  be  refpeSied.     He  could  not  find 
the  Nominative  Cafe  to  his  Verb,  and  fo  took  pertinet  to  be  the  im- 
peifonal.     But  another  time  let  him  remember  it  is  governed  of  id. 
fjm  enim  [id  quod  promiferis']  non  ad  Iram  Deorum,  qua  nulla  eft, 
fed  ad  fufiitiam  &  ad  Fidem  pertinet.      Literally   thus,  For  now 
'what  you  have  promifed  relates  not  to  the  Anger  of  the  Gods,  which 
is  indeed  no  Anger,  but  to  Jujlice  and  Good  Faith.     This  concludes 
the  Argument  very  logically.     But  our  Advocate  fays,  Jujiice  and 
good  Faith  is   immediately  to  be  refpecled:  Which  vitiates  the 
whole  Reafoning.    Flrft,  as  thcfe  Words  do  not  imply  the  San^ion, 
the  very  thing  Tully  is  here  fixing.     Secondly,  as  they  do  imply 
that  fometbing  elfe  was  to  be  reJpeSled^  the  very  thing  Tully  is  here 
oppofing. 

Is  not  this  an  able  Intepreter  of  his  old  Phllofophers  ?     Yet  the 
poor  Man  did  his  beft ;  and,  without  doubt,  laboured  hard.    With 

what 


REMARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D.  195 

what  Gravity  docs  he  introduce  this  Siibjed  !  From  the  fir Jl  [Prin- 
ciple] that  God  could  not  be  angry  nor  hurt  any  one,  he  (Mr.  VV.]  drawi 
a  Concluf.on,  that  they  could  believe  no  future  State,  &c.  which  he 
endeavours  to  fupport  by  a  Pafj'age  in  Tully,  the  true  Sense  of 
•which,  when  considered,  will  not,  as  I  apprehend,  anjwv  hii 
Purpcfc  *. 

VL 

But  he  will  flill  go  on :  To  JJjcw  (fays  he)  that  the  Ancients  did 
not  draw  the  fame  Coficlujion  from  this  Opinion  of  the  Phihfophers,  as 
the  ObjeBor  in  Tully  or  Mr.  Warburton,  //  appears  in  many  places 

that  they  believed What  ?  that  the  Gops  aBually  punijhed  this 

very  Crime,  and  that  Men  incurred  their  Anger  and  Difpleafure  by 
committing  it  •\.  And  fo  fay  I  too.  Nay  more,  I  fhew  at  large  \ 
the  Confiftency  of  this  Belief,  that  the  Gods  puniflied,  with  that 
other,  that  the  one  God  did  not.  And  yet  to  eftablifh  this  important 
Point  he  brings  two  Witnefles,  Cornelius  Ncpos  and  Xenophon. 

But,  as  if  confcious  of  the  Impertinence,  he  talks  more  to  the 
Purpofe  in  what  follows.  And  that  Mr.  Warburton's  DiJlinSlion 
between  the  Anger  of  Demons  and  that  of  the  Supreme  Being  may  have 
no  Place  here,  it  may  be  necejfary  to  fliew  by  a  Pajfage  or  two,  that, 
as  to  the  EfeSIs,  the  fame  is  afferted  of  the  Supreme  God  §.  This 
is  faying  fomething.  But  now  to  his  Evidence.  The  firfl:  he  pro- 
duces are  three  Poets.  Hefiod  (fays  he)  tdls  us,  that  he  whofpeaks 
the  Truth  in  public,  will  be  rewarded  by  all- feeing  Jove  j  but  he  who 
forfwears  himfelf  is  irreparably  lofl,  and  his  Pojlerity  floall  come  to 
nothing,  but  the  Generation  of  the  Jufl  JJjall  fouriflj.  ^/r^Phocylides, 
Forfwear  not  thyfef  either  inadverte?itly  or  knowingly, for  the  immortal 
God  hateth  a  falfe  Oath  ;  and  others  have  fpoke  to  the  fame  Purpofe  ||, 
for  which  he  quotes  \lUad.  167. 


Let 


*  p.  47,  48. 

f  p.  50.                    X  Divine  Legat.  vol.  II.  p. 85,  &  fcq. 

§  P.  s^. 

II  P.  S2,  S3. 

C   C    2                                                        I.   I 

1^6         REMARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

1.  Let  U5  attend  to  the  Qucftion.  It  is,  Whether  the  GVfp/^  P/j>- 
hjophen  believed  the  One  Supreme  Qjd  punifhed  and  rewarded  ?  And 
for  the  Proof  of  the  Affirmative,  lie  brings  us  three  Greek  Poets.  But 
ihib  is  not  the  worA  : 

2.  Two  of  thefe  Poets  do  not  (o  much  as  fpeak  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  but  of  the  falfe  Idol  Gods  of  the  People.  Homer  and  Hejiod 
cxprefly  call  the  God,  they  here  fpeak  of  as  the  Rewarder  and  Pu- 
nilher  of  true  and  flilfe  Swearers,  ZliTS  KPONIAHI,  Jupiter  Satur- 
nius.  Now  it  will  be  News,  I  fuppofc,  to  this  Writer,  that  Jupiter 
Saturnius  was  not  the  One  Supreme  Being,  but  Jupiter  the  Son  of  Sa- 
turn, an  Idol- Deity,  though  fet  at  the  Head  of  the  College. 

The  other  Greek  Poet  is,  if  poffible,  flill  lefs  to  his  Purpofc.  For 
be  happens  to  be  no  Heathen  at  all ;  indeed  not  fo  honeft  a  Man  : 
but  a  folfe  Chriftian,  the  Difgrace  of  our  holy  Religion,  who  would 
put  himfclf  on  the  World  for  old  Phocylides  the  Milejian,  contem- 
porary with  Theognis.  But  the  Impoflure  hath  been  detedled  by 
Critics  of  the  firfl:  Order,  luch  as  Jof'ph  Scaliger,  Ger.  and  If.  Vof- 
JiuSf  D.  Heinjius,  Huetius,  Rei/kius,  Barthius,  Tciubman,  &c.  To 
the  abundant  Arguments  they  have  produced,  we  may  add  this  very 
Expreffion,  cited  by  my  Adverfary,  Yev^o^nov  ^Bvyhi  Osog  «'£oo7©^. 

3.  But  had  thefe  Poets  been  Philofophers,  and  their  Idol  Gods, 
the  Supreme,  who,  unlefs  it  was  our  Advocate,  would  not  have 
feen  that,  in  popular  Writings,  they  muft  needs  talk  popu- 
larly, and  keep  an  efoteric  Opinion,  fo  deflrudlive  of  Society,  to 
themfelves  ? 

But  he  comes  yet  clofer  to  the  Point. Afjd  VhA-vofays,  God 

will  execute  Vengeance  on  him,  who,Jlighiing  the  awful  Majejy  of  his 
Divine  Power,  fidl  at  any  time  forfivear  himfelf'^'.  He  hath  given 
us  a  Philojopher  at  laft  we  fee ;  but  to  underfland  with  what  Judg- 
ment, we  muft  again  ftate  the  Queflion. 

I.  Which  is,  whether  the  Greek  Philofophers  believed  that 
the  Supreme  God  puniftied  and  rewarded.   Now  our  Advocate  hath 

*  P-  5^  53. 

owned f. 


REMARKS    ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D.         197 

civned,  and,  what  is  more,  hath  proved  that  the  Philofophers  had 
a  two-fold  Do£lrlne,  an  internal  and  an  external  ;  that  the  one 
contained  Matter  oi  Belief,  the  other  oi  Utility.  I  have  proved  (to 
which  our  Advocate  hath  laid  nothing)  that  the  Piillofophers  di- 
vided their  Writings  into  two  Claflcs,  the  exoteric  and  efoleric  ;  and 
that  this  very  Book  of  PLito,  intituled,  Of  Laws^  from  whence 
he  hath  taken  the  Pafliige  above,  was  of  the  exoteric  kind.  Yet  for 
all  this,  he  can  without  blu(hing,  or,  perhaps,  without  knowing 
why  he  fliould  blufh,  quote  the  Book  0/  LawSt  for  Plato's  real  Sen- 
timents, in  contradidion  to  what  ^ully  and  La£fnntius  tell  us  was 
Part  of  the  e/oieric  Dodrine  of  all  the  Philofophers.  The  impar- 
tial Reader  with  hardly  refleft  on  this  without  fome  Sort  of  Pity  or 
Indignation.  But  what  will  he  fay  when  I  tell  him  that  this 
Fjlliicy,  with  others  as  grofs,  that  have  been  and  fliall  be  taken 
notice  of  in  their  Place,  run  through  every  Page  of  his  Performance  ? 
2.  But  we  have  not  yet  done  with  this  Quotation  from  Plaio> 
It  is  doomed  to  undergo  a  flill  greater  Difgrace.  In  an  evil  Hour 
did  our  Advocate  forget  his  Gieek,  unconfcious  that  Fatez.\\<S.  Frec' 
thinking  had  decreed  to  raife  him  up,  in  Spite  of  Nature,  for  the 
Preparer  of  the  Way  to  pure  Pagan  Philofophy,  with  his 

— Petite  btnc^  yuvenejque^  Senefque, 
Finem  animo  cerium  mijerijque  viatica  canis  *. 

For  here  Serranus  hath  given  him  a  terrible  quid  pro  quo ;  which  lie- 
hath  innocently  fwallowed.  This  Tranflator  makes  Plato  fay  Deus 
ilium  Odio profequitur^  qui  Sacrosancta  Divini  Numinis  Autho- 
ritate  negleSlafalfiim  Juramentum  dicit-f.  But  Plato  fays  no  fuch 
thing.  He  fpeaks  of //j^  Gods,  m  the  piural,  fuch  as  the  People 
worfhipped.  The  whole  Paflage  is  in  thefe  Words :  Let  no  Man,  ivbcm 
he  invokes  the  Gods  for  his  Truth,  mix  any  thing  of  Falfhood,  F  randy, 
or  Infincerity^  either  in  his  IFord  or  Deed ;  unkfs  he  chiifes  to  become 

*  The  Motto  to  his  Title-page.  t  P'^t.  917,  n.  Ed.  Serr. 


,5,3         REMARKS    ON     T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

mo^f}  hatfful  to  the  Gods.  As  in  the  firjl  Place  is  he,  who,  without  any 
Rrcfrence  to  the  QaXi^,  j'tfears  faljely:  And  in  the  fecond  Place,  he, 
'ivho  ties  bfore  his  Betters.  YiZl©^  [/.riSu;  jwij^ci'  fiviS'  aVaV^jv,  /*ij5e  t< 
x'itir.hBY,  yUO'  'iviKxXviziil^  QEClN,  i^riTt  Xcyai  [^-^ts  eoyui  -srpx^eis'j,  o 
u>;  3j5/i*«(rfs-a7©-  [Diis  ifi/erifZ/imus,  {nys  Serraniis  rightly  here]  eVeo^k/ 

cO-  Sf,  Of  «»"  hocvjiov  Tuv  Kpetrjovc^jv  ui-ri  ^iv^slat.  Had  our  Advocate 
had  the  leaft  Tafte  of  Antiquity,  he  might  have  feen,  from  the 
concluding  Period,  with  what  Spirit  the  whole  was  written.  With 
no  other  fare  than  to  inftrud  the  People  in  their  Devoirs  to  Society. 
A  likely  Place  to  find  any  oi  Plato's  efoteric  DoiSlrines. 

But  if  one  confiders  the  whole  Evidence  together,  one  would 
wonder  how  It  could  ever  enter  ferioufly  into  the  Head  of  one, 
whofe  ProfefTion  (if  it  taught  him  any  thing)  taught  him  to  judge 
of  the  Nature  of  Evidence,  that  Poets  writing  to  the  People,  and 
fpeaking  their  Language,  or  a  Poetical Phllofopher  writing  a  Popular 
hook  cf  haws  to  keep  them  in  Order,  Ihould  ever  talk  to  a  Heathen 
Commonalty  of  the  ojily  One  God. 

VIL 

Eut  he  is  wifer  in  what  follows.  T^he  next  Authority  (fays  he) 
Mr.  Warburton  brings  tojirengthen  his  Conclujion  is  from  Ladantius, 
which  he  calls  an  illujirious  Inflance;  but  on  reading,  it  turns  out 
fo  low  and  infipid,  that  it  is  not  worth  considering  *. 
Indeed,  fo  (hort !  How  happy  had  it  been  for  him  had  he  pafled 
the  fame  Judgment  on  all  the  refl !  The  Argument  from  La^an- 
tius  flood  thus:  That  eloquent  Writer,  in  defending  Chrif- 
tianify,  found  nothing  fo  much  oppofed  the  Dodrine  of  z  fu- 
ture Judgment,  as  a  prevailing  Principle  common  to  all  the  Phi- 
lofophers,  that  God  could  not  be  angry.  He  therefore  com- 
pofed  his  Difcourfe,  intituled,  De  Ira  Dei,  to  combat  this  follow- 
ing Syllogifm  : 

*  P.  51. 

If 


REMARKS     ON     T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 


[99 


If  God  hath  no  AfFedions  of  Love  or  Hatred,  Fonduefs  or  Anger, 

he  cannot  reward  or  punifli. 
But  he  hath  no  Affedtions,  &c. 
Therefore,  (^c. 

A  modern  Advocate  of  Religion  would  certainly  have  denied  the 
major,  but  that  was  a  Principle  which  hadlant'tus  exprefly  tells  us 
was  received  by  all  Parties.  He  therefore  turns  his  whole  Difcourfe 
againft  the  minor ;  and  endeavours  to  prove  that  God  hath  thefe 
Affedions.  Nor  does  he  at  all  mince  the  Matter.  For  he  tells  us 
there  are  in  God,  as  In  Man,  the  Paflions  of  Love  and  Hatred  :  And, 
to  make  all  fure,  contends  for  God's  having  an  human  Form.  Now 
the  Inference  I  drew  from  it  was  this,  that,  as  Laclantius  was  ad- 
mirably well  Ikilled  In  all  Pagan  Philofophy,  he  could  not  mifl-ake 
a  Principle  which  all  the  Philofophers  held,  nor  a  Confequence 
which  they  all  drew  from  it.  The  Principle  was,  that  the  Supreme 
God  had  no  Affeftions ;  and  the  Confequence,  that  he  could  neither 
reward  nor  punlfli.  Therefore  this  Principle  and  this  Confequence  were 
held  by  all,  the  Point  to  be  proved.  It  was  on  this  Account, 
that  I  called  the  Cafe  of  Ladlantius  an  illujlrious  one.  Our  Advo- 
cate fays  'tis  low  and  injipid,  and  7iot  "worth  confidcring.  Utri  creditls, 
Qulrites  ? 

But  I  commended  him  too  foon.  He  won't  let  the  Matter  reft 
when  'tis  well :  See  then  what  comes  of  it. 

He  tells  the  Reader,  xhzt  I  myfelf  fay  La£tantlu3  knew  little  of 
Chrijlianity  *.  Egregious  Advocate  !  mufl  not  this  be  the  very  Caufe 
(if  there  were  any  Caufe  at  all)  of  thofe  Pbilofophic  Prejudices,  which 
lb  fatally  difpofed  him  to  attack  the  minor  rather  than  the  major  ? — 
That  he  fell  into  many  Errors  -f.     Could  It  be  otherwife  while  he  op- 

pofed  the  minor  ? That  his  Treafife  was  obfcure  \.     Muft  It  not 

needs  be  fo,  when  his  Oppofition  to  the  minor  led  him  to  maui- 

*  p.  53.  t  Ibid.  X  Ibid. 

tain. 


soo         REMARKS     ON     T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

tain,  that  there  is  in  God,  as  in  Man,  the  P.ifTions  of  Love  and 

Ijjtred  r And  Jlrotigly  contended  that  God  had  a   human  Form  *. 

Was  not  this  Extravagance  a  full  Proof  that  the  Connexion  between 
tlie  Principle  (of  God's  having  no  Paffions)  and  the  Conjequmce  (that 
he  could  neither  punifh  nor  reward)  was  fo  univerfally  held  that 
he  could  find  no  Way  to  break  through ;  but  was  forced  to  evade  it, 
by  aflerting  God  had  Paflions  ?  For  which  to  provide  a  proper 
Subje(ft,  he  thought  fit  to  give  him  a  human  Form  likewife. — All 
then  (fays  our  Advocate)  that  appears  from  this  illujirious  Injlance  is, 
that  Laftantius  grojly  mi/took  this  Jine  Sentiment  of  the  Philofophersir. 
Docs  he  know  whom  he  talks  of?  Why,  this  LaBantius  was  a 
Philofpher  himfelf ;  not  like  that  canting  Tribe  of  Dunces,  Por- 
phyry, yamblichus,  &c.  who  firfl:  brought  their  Fanaticifm  into 
the  Schools  of  Philofophy,  which  fo  foon  after,  and  fo  fatally,  in- 
fcdlcd  the  Church  of  Ci^rjy?;  but  one  whom  the  greatefl:  Monarch 
of  the  World  made  choice  of  for  the  Governor  of  his  Son.  He  was 
a  Lawyer  too,  and  his  Critics  fay,  a  happy  Emulator  of  the  Elo- 
quence of  Cicero.  Yet  our  Advocate  believes  in  good  earnefl:,  that 
he  grnfly  mijlook  this  fine  Sentiment  of  the  Philofophers.  Alas  !  What 
he  mijlook  were  the  fine  Sentiments  of  Chriflianily;  and  this  in  too 
warm  a  Zeal  for  overturning  thofe  of  Philofophy,  which  he  under- 

flood  but  too  well. And  in  combating  with  it  fell  into  a  Puddle  of 

foul  Abfurdities  +.  Who  told  him  fo  ?  Dodors  differ.  St.  Jerom 
calls  this  Tra6l  De  Ira  Dei,  pulch^rrimum  Opus.  Which  had  our 
Advocate  known,  without  doubt,  he  had  oppofed  the  Judgment 
of  a  Father  of  the  Church  to  mine.  For,  to  fay  the  Truth,  I  am 
anfwerable  for  all  the  Freedoms  he  here  takes  with  LaSiantius  ;  what 
he  knew  of  the  De  Ira  Dei  being  only  from  The  Divine  Legation. 
But  1  produce  the  Authority  of  Jerom,  who  differs  fo  much  frona 
my  Sentiments  of  the  Traft,  to  fliew  the  Reader  that  LaStantiuCs 
Manner  of  fupporting  a>/«re  yW^wc/?^  againft  the  Philofophers, 

*  ^-iJ-  +  P.  54.  1  Ibid. 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD.         201 

was  the  approved  Defence  of  the  learned  Chriftlans  of  that  time. 
Confequently  La&atiiius  did  not  gro/Iy  m'ljlake  this  fine  Sentiment  of 
the  Philojophcrs. 

viir. 

But  this  Principle  feems  fated  to  difgrace  him  ;  fo  that  he  can't 
for  his  Life  let  it  alone.  He  goes  on  therefore  in  thefe  Words : 
To  clear  this  Matter  more  fully,  it  may  novo  be  proper  to  confder  the 
Trivcivle  it/elf  which,  as  Mr.  Warburtony^Ty^,  greatly  embarmjfed 
Antiquity ;  becaufe  the  Ancients,  fays  he,  could  not  difingiiifo  between 
human  Pajfions  and  the  divine  Attributes  of  Jujlice  and  Goodnefs,  p. 
393  *.  But  I  hope  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  Ancients  were  not  all 
embarrajfed ;  and  that  they  difinguijloed  in  this  Particular,  jif  in  the 
fame  Manner  as  we  do  now  -f. 

He  tells  the  Reader,  I  fay  the  Principle  greatly  embar raffed  An- 
tiquity, and  refers  to  page  593*.  Let  the  Reader  then  hear  me  fpeak. 
*'  We  fee  Tully  owns  the  Confequence  of  this  univerfal  Principle. — 
*'  A  modern  Reader,  full  of  the  Philofophic  Ideas  of  thefe  late 
"  Ages,  will  be  furprifed,  perhaps,  to  be  told,  that  this  Con- 

*'  SEQUENCE  GREATLY  EMBARRASSED  AnTIQUITY  ;    whcn   he  Cail 

*'  fo  eafily  evade  it,  by  diftinguifliing  between  human  PalTions  and 
•*  the  divine  Attributes  of  Juftice  and  Goodnefs,  on  which  alone 
*'  the  Do£lrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments  is  in- 
*'  vinciblv  eftabliflied.  But  the  Ancients  had  no  fuch  precife  Ideas 
<'  of  the  Divine  Nature.     They  knew  not  how  to  fever  Anger  from 

*»  its  Juftice,  nor  Fondnefs  from  its  Goodnefs." He  charges  me 

with  faying  the  Pki-^cwl-e.  greatly  embarrajj'cd  Antiquity  :  and  I  fay 
the  Consequence  from  that  Vnv\c\^\e  greatly  embarrajfed  Antiquity. 
What  are  we  to  think  of  this  ?  That  it  was  done  with  Defign  ? 
Alas !  No.  The  poor  Man  knew  no  Difference  between  Principles 
and  Confequences,  Premlfles  and  Concluftons.  Or  if  he  had  any 
Meaning,  it  was  to  fhew  his  Contempt  of  thefe,  and  all  other  my 


*  Div.  Leg.  c'!.  4to,  vol.  II.  p.  88.  f  P-  S4» 

Vol.  VI.  D  d 


202         REMARKS     ON    TILLARD. 

nice  Dnh'fjclions,  Divi/iom,  atid  Subdkif.ons,  which,  he  tells  us,  he 

pojes  ever  as  needle fs  Curiojities*. 

"^But  his  next  atteiulMit  Effort  is  flill  more  furprifiiig.  For  he 
riles  ill  his  Blunders,  like  Homer's  Battles  in  their  Terror.  I  had 
faid  ibe  jlncicKts  were  e/Jidarrq(fed.  He  will  prove  ihey  were  not  at 
all  embarr4'iiU  without  fo  much  as  knowing  what  Ancients  muft 
needs  be  meant.  Now  the  intelligent  Reader  fees  they  are  the  an- 
cient Christian,  uot  Pagan  Writers,  for  this  plain  Reafon,  That, 
though  1  hold  neither  Chriftian  nor  Pagan  Writers  could  diflinguijh 
between  human  FaJJions  and  the  divine  Attributes,  yet  none  but  Chrif- 
tian  Writers  could  be  embarrajed  with  the  Confequence  of  God's 
not  being  angry  (which  Confequence  was,  that  therefore  he  could 
not  punlfh)  becaufe  none  but  Chriftians  (according  to  my  Aflertion) 
held  that  he  could  punifh.  Now  from  their  holding,  as  they  did 
at  firft,  with  the  Philofophers,  that  God  could  not  be  angry,  and 
with  the  Founders  of  their  Faith^  that  hewoiddpunijh,  arofe  all  that 
EM  BAR  R  AS  I  took  notice  of  ^  and  which  of  courfe  I  muft  fuppofe  the 
Pagans  free  from,  by  their  not  holding  thofe  two  fuppofed  contrary 
Propofitlons.  Our  Advocate,  who  had  not  the  leaft  Conception  of 
all  this,  will  yet  venture  to  contradi<5t  me  ;  and  taking  It  for  granted,, 
as  he  does  every  thing  he  can't  prove,  that  I  meant  Pagan  Anti- 
quity lay  under  this  Embarrafs,  he  brings  a  Number  of  Paflages. 
from  Pagan  Philofophers  to  confute  my  Aflertion.  Thus  all  he, 
proves,  if  he  (hould  chance  to  prove  any  thing,  being  nothing  to. 
the  Purpofe,  I  might  here  fairly  leave  him  to  himfelf. 

But  as  Pagan  Antiquity,  though  it  was  not  embarrajfed  like  the. 
Chrifiian,  yet  was  not  at  all  more  exadl  in  its  Ideas  of  the  Divine  At- 
tributes, I  will  permit  our  Advocate,  for  once,  to  fuppofe,  that  I  had 
faid,  that  the  ancient  Philofophers  were  embarrajfed,  and  could  not  dijiin- 
guijl}  between  human  FaJJions,  and  the  Divine  Attributes :  Let  us  fee 
then  what  he  will  make  of  it.     But  as  I  reftore  him  his  Arms,  and 


inftrud 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD.         203 

inftrudl  him  how  to  ufe  them,  It  may  be  allowed  me  to  rcmuid  my 
Reader, 

1.  That  when  I  fay  they  could  not  difthiguifh  between  human 
PaJJions  and  the  Divine  Attributes,  I  mean  the  Attributes  of  the 

frji  CauJ'e  of  all  Things. 

2.  When  I  fay  they  could  not  diftinguiJJj,  I  mean  diftinguifh  in 
fuch  a  Manner,  as  to  leave  Room  for  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State 
of  Rewards  and  Puniihments ;  all  other  Diftindiions  being  out  of 
the  Queftlon. 

Well  then,  to  prove  that  Antiquity  was  not  embarraffed,  how  does 
this  mighty  Gharnpionof  Old  Philofophy  fet  out  ?  Why  firfi:  he  proves 
that  he  himfelfis  not  embarrqjfed*.  Secondly,  that  thofe  tvho  read  the 
Scriptures  cannot  be  embarrajfed  i,-.  But  this  is  only  to  feel  his  own 
Strength,  and  make  the  Flourifh  of  his  Arms.  He  foon  comes  to  him- 
felf,  and  then  fays,  But  that  the  Reader  may  fee  how  rightly  the  Phi- 
lojophers  could  d'lfxinguijl)  between  human  PaJJions  and  the  Divine  Attri- 
butes, IJloall  now  lay  before  him  Jome  Pajfages,  in  which  it  is  faid 
God  is  not  Jubjecl  to  PaJJion,  or  that  he  is  void  of  Anger,  and  can  hurt 
none  ;  and  others,  where  he  is  faid  to  be  angry,  and  to  punijl)  Sinners 
for  their  Crimes  ;  by  which  every  one  may  the  better  judge,  whether 
the  Ancients  were  not  exaSil^  of  the  Jame  Opinion  as  himfclf,  and  did 
not  [peak  as  Chr flans  now  do,  Jometimes  with  regard  to  the  ineffable 
and  ahjolute  ReStitiide  of  an  infinitely  perfect  Being,  andfometimes  with 
RefpcB  to  the  Relation  he  bears  to  us  his  finite  and  imperfeSi  Creatures  ;};. 
This  is  indeed  to  the  Point. 

And  fir Jl,  fays  he,  I  readily  agree  with  Mr.  Warburton,  that  it 
•was  the  Opinion  of  all  the  Philofophers,  that  God  could  not  be  angry ^ 
nor  hurt  any  one  §.  And  though  we  agree  In  this,  yet  he  will  bring 
feveral  Witneffes  to  prove  it.  This  is  always  his  Way  when  he 
has  fo  fafe  Ground  to  go  upon.  Thus  he  proved  the  double  Doctrine 
of  the  Philofophers,  and  the  fingle  Obje5i  of  that  double  Doftrine. 
And  on  fuch  Occafions,  I  muft  acquaint  the  Reader,  he  Is  a  mod 
*  Seep.  54.  t  p.  s;.  %  P.  55,  56.  §  P.  56, 

D  d  2  unmerciful 


ao4  REMARKS  ON  T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 
\inmcrciful  Prover.  But  as  he  can  never  forbear  mixing  and  con- 
founding the  fevercl  Parts  of  his  SubjevH:,  the  laft  of  his  Teftimo- 
nics,  to  prove  God  cannot  lie  angry,  being  taken  from  Seneco,  he  is 
drawn  to  another  Queflion  before  iiis  Time.  But  Order,  Method, 
and  I^gic,  \vt;  know,  are  nothing  with  this  Writer.  Plovvever, 
a  good  Thing  never  comes  amifs.  What  then  fays  Seneca  ?  That 
that  Man  is  mijloken,  whofuppofes  the  Gods  can  hurt  any  one ;  for 
they  neither  can  do  ivrong,  norfufer  it,  both  of  which  betoken  Frailty.. 
But  Seneca  immediately  after  Jays,  that  the  Gods  do  cxadi  Punijh- 
fticni,  and  chqflife  fo>ne  for  their  Good.  Therefore  Seneca  mujl  either 
contradiB  himflf  or  f peak  of  the  fame  Beings  in  different  RefpeSis  ; 
and  indeed  thefe  two  lafl  Parages  of  Seneca,  one  of  which  is  quoted  by 
Mr.  \Varburton,  to  prove  that  the  Gods  can  hurtnone,fem  to  have 
no  Reference  to  their  juji  Anger  againf  Sinners,  hut  to  fuch  Hurt  or  In- 
jury as  ar  if  OS  from  IVrong  or  Injufice  *. 

1.  This  whole  Remark  is  nothing  to  the  Purpofe.  Seneca  here 
means  tiie  Gods  of  PaganifiTi,  not  thefirfi  Caufe  of  all  Things,  where 
he  talks  of  their  punifnng  and  chaftifing.  Now  the  firf-  Cmfe  is  the 
Subjeft  of  our  QueAion. 

2.  But  of  thefe  two  Paffages,  one  is  quoted  by  me  (he  fays)  to 
PROVE  that  the  Gods  can  hurt  none.  The  Paflage  is  in  page  402,  of 
the  fecond  Edition  t-  My  Words  are  thefe,  A  Benevolence  too- 
that  went  not  from  the  Will,  but  the  EJfence  of  the  Supreme  Being  ; 
SO  Seneca  informs  us,  ^ne  caufa  efi  Diis,  &c.  Here  again  his  old 
Luck  follows  him.  I  quoted  it  to  fhew  what  Kind  of  Benevolence 
they  gave  to  God:  He  fays,  I  quoted  it  to  prove  the  Gods  can  hurt 
none. 

Having  thus  notably  fupported  his  Agreement  with  me,  that  it 
was  the  Opinion  of  the  Philofophers  that  God  could  not  be  angry 
nor  hurt  any  one  ;  he  proceeds.  But  that  they  are  angry,  fo  as  to 
punif J  the  wicked  for  their  Crimes,  might  be  proved  by  a  multitude  of 

*'  ^'-  58.  t  Vol.  II.  p.  99,  of  this  edition, 

Tejli- 


REMARKS     ON    T  I  I.  L  A  R  D.  ^05 

Tc/limonics  *.  Without  doubt  it  might.  But  what  then  ?  I  re- 
quire him  to  Hiew,  that  the  Philofophers  believed  the  One  God  comVX 
be  angry  and  punifli  ;  and  he  fays,  they  believed  their  falfe  Gods 
could.  And  fo  faid  I,  and  proved  it  likewife.  Yet  he  brings  Wit- 
nefs  upon  Witnefs,  Poets  upon  Philofophers,  to  (hew  they  thought 
-vm  Gov>B  could  be  angry  and  pmiijh  :  And  then  goes  on  thus:  By 
ail  ivbich  it  manlfe/ily  appears^  that  nvhen  the  Aucienls  Jaid^  God 
could  not  be  angry ^  they  meant,  &c  f.  Was  there  ever  fuch  a  Rea- 
foner  ?  He  will  prove  what  the  Ancients  thought  of  their  fal/ii 
Gods,  a  Thing  nobody  aHvcd  ;  and  from  thence  conclude,  what 
they  thought  of  the  Supreme,  a  Thing  nobody  will  believe. 
,  But  left  the  Reader  fhould  fufped",  as  he  has  little  Reafon,  tliat: 
this  was  only  a  Blunder  in  Words  ;  and  that  though  cur  Advocate 
promifed  to  (hew  by  Quotations,  what  was  nothing  to  the  Purpofe, 
yet  the  Quotations  themfelves  might  haply  inform  us  of  what  was ; 
1  fhall  run  through  his  Paflages. 

The  two  firft  |  are  from  Platans  Book  of  Lazvs,  a  Writing  of  the 
ex'jteric  Kind,  in  which  the  Philofopher  fpeaks  to  the  People  ;  and 
confequently  muft  needs  fpeak  of  thofe  Gods  they  were  acquainted 
with.  In  one  of  the  Pali'ages  he  adually  \\{t%  the  plural,  in  the 
other  X.\\efingular,  ufed  perpetually,  in  the  Writings  of  the  An- 
cients, for  the  plural:  Sometimes  as  the  peculiar  tutelary  God  of 
tiie  People  was  meant;  fometlmes  as  it  was  Jupiter  the  firft  of  the 
Clafs;  but  moft  frequently  as  it  was  a  common  Figure  of  Speech 
for  a  Greek  Republican  to  fay  the  God  ov  the  Mngijlraie,  when  there 
were  a  hundred  of  each.  But  what  will  furprife  our  Advocate  (who' 
appears  not  to  have  received  Inftru£lion  on  this  Matter)  they  fome-- 
times,  though  very  rarely,  ufed  the  Plural  for  the  Singular.  As 
Seneca,  in  the  Place  that  came  in  Queftion  juft-  above,  :^a  caufd 
ejl  Diis,  &c.  and  Salltiji,  in  another,  that  will  come  in  Queftion 
below.  A  little  Difcernment  is  fufficient  to  take  them  right,  ii: 
either  of  thefe  converjions.     But  this  is  more,  it  fecms,  than  wearw* 

*  P.  58,  S9'  t  P-  ^^O'  +  ^-  59. 


2,6         REMARKS    ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 
to  cxpea  of  our  Advocate,  who  puzzling  on,  between  his /rw  and 
falfe  Gods,  hangs,  like  a  falfe  Teacher  as  he  is,  between  Heaven 
*anJ  Earth,  in   the  Fool's  Paradife  of  Pagan  Philofophy. 

l"he  other  two  Paflages  he  brings  *  are  from  a  fpurious  Thing 
given  to  Cicero.  This  was  a  pleafant  Miftake.  He  had  feen  me 
quote  Tulh  tie  Confobliom,  twice,  and  therefore  thought  he  might 
fcifely  do  tlie  fame.  But  my  two  Paflages  were  from  the  genuine 
Fragments  of  that  loft  Book  ;  his  two,  by  the  Malice  of  his  old 
Luck,  from  that  Forgcxy  oi Sigonius,  intituled,  De  Confolatione,  and 
fatliered  iipon  Tw.Vv :  But  it  could  never  get  a  Godfather  till  our 
Advocate  became  Its  Sponfor.  Cicero  (fays  he)  fays  that  a  Man  by 
kis  IFickednefs  becomes  an  Enemy  and  hated  of  God.  And  for  this  dc- 
cifive  Saying,  C/V.  de  Cotfol.  is  quoted. 

He  goes  on,  But  we  need  not  qufiion  the  Philofophers,  when  the 
Fcets  fay  the  fame  t-  Nay,  It  muft  be  owned  they're  all  in  a  Story. 
And  how  (hould  they  chufe,  wlien  prompted  by  l\\tn falfe  Gods, 
in  whofe  Favour  they  are  fpeaking  ? 

At  length  however,  as  if  even  fenfible  of  the  Impertinence  of  all 
he  had  been  faying,  he  goes  on   thus  :   But  not  to  let  this  Matter 

rcfl  ii'holly  upon  Conclusions,  though  never  fo  well  grounded. 

He  means  Inferences.  You  muft  excufe  him.  If  he  be  there,  or 
thereabouts,  'tis  enough  for  a  Man  fo  averfe  to  the  Nicety  of  Dif- 
tinSiion.  Well,  not  to  let  it  refi  then  (though  I  fufped  It  had  been 
the  wifer  Courfe,  as  I  am  fo  well  acquainted  with  his  Way  of 
mending  Matters)  What  then  ?  Why,  he  wWl  further fhew  what 
Cotfrudlions  they  put  upon  fuch  ExpreJJions,  by  one  who  has  wrote  a 
'iiihole  Chapter  upon  this  ^efion,  "  In  what  Senfe  can  the  Gods,  who 
"  are  immutable,  be  fa  id  to  be  either  angry  or  appeafed?"  In  which 
"  he  tells  us,  that  God  cannot,  properly  fpeaking,  be  f aid  to  rejoice, 
'■^  for  then  he  mu[i  fometimes  be  affeSied  with  Sorrow  ;  7ior  to  be  angrx, 
'■'■  fnce  Anger  is  a  Motion  of  the  Mind;  nor  to  be  pie  a  fed  with  Gifts, 
'■^  for  that  would  be  to  be  overcome  with  Pkafures,  ^c.  ;  but  while 

''  P.  so-  t  P-  60. 


R  E  M  ARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D.        C07 

*'  we  are  good,  v.'c  are  united  to  the  Gods  by  Simililude,  and  ivbcii  • 
"  wicked,  Jeparated for  our  Unlihnefs  :  Not  that  they  are  really  angr\i, 
*■'•  but  that  our  Offences  hinder  the  Light  of  their  Goodnefs  from  finning 
"  upon  us  ',  wherefore  it  is  the  fame  thing  to  fay,  God  hat  ih,  or  is  angry 
"  with  Sinners  y  as  to  fay  the  Sun  is  hid  from  the  Eyes  of  thofe  who  are 
*«  blind  ^."  Thefe  are  the  Words  of  Salluji  the,  Philofopher.  To 
which  I  anfwer, 

I.  That  this  Salhift  is  no  legal  Evidence.  I  have  expreffly  excepted 
againlt  him  and  all  his  Fellows,  all  that  came  fo  long  after  the 
Times  in  queftion  ;  which  I  confine  to  the  Period  before  Chriji, 
I'he  rifing  of  the  Gofpel,  I  confefs,  again  and  again,  gave  fucli 
Light  to  the  Philofophers,  that  they  refined  all  their  Doctrines  by 
its  Splendor,  and  then,  like  their  mimic  Brethren  of  the  prefent 
Age,  ungratefully  abufed  their  Benefadtors.  Thefe  are  my  VVordsi 
in  one  Place  of  my  Book  :  "'Such  was  the  general  Doftrine  on  this 
"  Point  before  the  coming  of  ChriiVianity.  But  then  thofe  Philo- 
"  fophers  who  held  out  againfl:  its  Truth,  after  fome  Time,  new- 
♦'  modelled  both  their  Philofophy  and  Religion  :  making  their 
*'  Philofophy  more  religious,  and  their  Religion  more  philofophical. 
"  — So  amongfi:  the  many  Improvements  of  Paganifm,  the  foften- 
"  ing  this  Do£lrine  was  one. — And  it  is  remarkable,  that/-6^;;,  and^ 
"  not  till  then,  the  Philofophers  began  really  to  believe  the  Dootrine  of  a 
'^future  State  rf  Rewards  and  Punifl:metits  -j-."  What  now  muf): 
we  think  of  our  Advocate  ?  Was  there  ever  any  thing  lb  fliame- 
lefs  ?  Yet  this  is  one  of  his  hackney  Fallacies,  that  runs  on  all  hib. 
Errands. 

2.  But  as  our  Advocate  is  turned  Solicitor,  and,  without  doubt, 
has  been  at  much  pains  in  finding  out  this  Witnefs,  wc  will  hear 
him.  And  if  he  fliould  chance  to  prove  what  I  affirm,  and  what 
my  Adverfary  denies,  it  would  be  but  the  common  Cafe  of  Evi- 
dence picked  up  at  a  Venture,  to  fupport  a  bad  Caufe.  To  keep- 
him  no  longer  in  Sufpenfe,  I  muft  here  let  him  know,  tliat,  had  I 

*  P.  6i,  63.  t  Divine  LegEt.  vol.  II.  p.  ii6^ 


toS        REMARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

fearchcd  all  Antiquity,  I  could  not  have  found  a  Palll.ge  more  to 
xny  Purpolc.     Sucii  is  his  old  Luck  at  quoting. 

This  Sal/uji  having  put  together  forae  con;imon-place  Stuff  of  the 
Gods  and  the  World,  in  his  fourteenth  Chapter  propofes  to  fpeak  to 
this  Queftion,  How  the  immutable  Gods  may  be /aid  to  be  angry  and 

y.iyoPa:.  He  favs,  in  the  firft  place,  that  God  has  no  human 
Paffiono,  he  neither  rejoices^  is  angry,  nor  appcafed  with  Gifts,  J  %a(p£/ 
^fjf kSe  ooy'i^pxi — ale  Su^oig  ^ipxTnvBJKi.  So  far  doubtlefs  is  agree- 
able to  Truth.  But  how  tlien  ?  Why  that  the  Gods  are  eternally 
beneficent^  or,  as  Seneca  had  faid,  Canfa  Diis  benefaciendi  Natura, 
and  bene-ficent  only,  but  never  hurtful,  iicii'uoi  f^h  eKyaQoi  te  £iV;v  AEI,  it 
<Jj£X^r»  fiovov  (i>.u7fl\£<Ti  l\  ^SeTioje.  Thus  having  avoided  one  Ex- 
treme, he  falls  into  another,  and  fappofeth  it  blind  Nature  and  not 
IVill  that  determines  God's  Beneficence.  The  Inference  from  this 
is,  that  the  Rewards  and  Punifhments  of  Heaven  are  the  riatural 
and  neceffary  JLffcSls  of  A£lions  ;  not  pofitive,  arbitrary  Confequences, 
or  the  Defignation  of  Will.  And  fo  our  Philofopher  maintains. 
For  now  the  Difficulty  being,  that  li Nature  be  the  Caufe  cf  the  Bene- 
ficence of  the  Godhead,  how  can  Providence  beftow  Good  on  the  vir- 
tuous Man,  and  Evil  on  the  Wicked  ?  Our  Sophlil  refolves  it  thus : 
While  we  are  good,  we  are  joined  by  Similitude  of  Nature  to  the  Gods ; 
a)iJ  when  evil,  feparated  by  Dijfimilitude — They  become  our  Emmies, 
not  becaufe  they  are  angry  at  us,  but  becaufe  our  Crimes  hinder  the 
Gods  from  pining  on  us — wherefore  it  would  be  the  fame  thing  ta^fay, 
that  God  is  turned  away  from  the  Evil,  as  to  fay,  the  Sun  is  hid 

FROM  A  BLIND  MaN.      'UfJiug  Se  dyocSo)  jmsv  'oi^eg  Si"  of^oioT^a  QsoTg  (Tvv- 

«7r/c|xE9«,    K«HCt  oe  ysvofiSVOi  Oi   a.yo(A,Oi<}Tvi\ot,'x^oo^i,^o^BQoi !iK.lx,£tvuv  opyi^o- 

fii,uv,  uKXc.  rt/jv  ui/.ufj7i[/.xTuiv  ©sag  (/.evv^uTv  iyclu-^uv  IxXixfjLTrav — wj-e  o^oiov 
rev  Qsov  Xsyeiv  r^g  Kxx^g  eKTrig-^BCpBa-dxt  it,  tov  H/VION  ToTg  Ig'e^vji/.evoig  r&jy 
c"']>Ei)v  K^vTrJid-dut.  An  apt  Comparifon,  and  very  expreflive  of  the 
Cafe  ;  where  the  Influence  of  the  Deity  is  fuppofed  to  be  natural, 
like  tliC  Sun's,  and  confequently  all  Reward  and  Punifhment,  not 

the 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD.  209 

the  moralf  but  the  necejfary  Iflue  of  Things.  A  Platonic  *  Principle 
entirely  fubverfive  of  the  proper  Do£trine  of  a  future  State  of  Re- 
wards and  Punifhments,  as  believed  every  where  by  the  People,  and 
taught  by  the  Chriftian  Religion.  But  this  Matter  I  had  explained 
at  large  in  page  398  of  the  Book  *  he  pretends  to  write  againft.  The 
■  Pagans  then,  we  find,  in  taking  away  human  Paflions  from  God^ 
left  him  nothing  but  an  eflential  Excellence,  that  went  not  from 
his  Will,  but  his  Nature  only,  and  confequently  was  deftitute  of  Mo' 
rality.  This  was  one  Extreme.  The  Primitive  Chrijiiatis,  as  Lcic- 
iantius,  feeing  clearly  that  the  Platonic  Notion  of  God  overturned  a 
future  Judgment,  and  not  feeing  that  Medium  which  their  Maftcrs 
in  Science,  the  Philojophers,  had  mifled  of,  maintained  that  God 
had  human  Faffions.  And  this  was  the  other  Extreme.  And  whence, 
I  pray,  did  both  arife,  but  from  neither's  being  able  to  diftinguifh 
between  human  Pajfions  and  the  Divine  Attributes  of  Justice 
AND  Goodness,  the  true  Medium  between  human  PaJJions  and  a 
blind  Excellence  of  Nature?  Did  not  I  guefs  right  when  I  faid,  if 
he  would  not  let  the  Matter  reft,  he  would  foon  make  it  worfe  ?  Yet 
hear  how  triumphantly  he  goes  off;  unconfcious  of  all  the  fine 
Work  he  has  been  making.  Jlnd  now  I  may  "venture  to  affirm  (fays 
he)  that  no  one  can  reafonably  imagine  this  Opinion  of  the  Philojophers, 
that  God  cannot  be  angry,  &c.  could  be  any  the  leaf  Objlacle  to  their 
believing  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifjments  f.  I,  for  my 
Part,  will  only  venture  to  affirm  that  the  Difpute  between  us  (if 
that  may  be  called  a  Difpute  where  there  is  no  ContradiSlionJ  ftands 
thus :  I  had  faid,  The  ylncients  could  not  dijlinguijh  between  human 
Faffions  and  the  divine  Attributes  of  J'fice  and  Goodnefs  in  the  first 
Cause  of  all  Things :  And  he  has  proved  they  could  dfinguip  be- 
liveenjuji  and  iinjuji  Paffiions  in  their  idolatrous  Gods.  I  had  faid 
they  could  not  Jo  difinguip  as  to  leave  any  Foundation  for  the  DoHrinc 
cf  a  future  State  ofP.ewards  andPuniJhments  :  And  he  has  proved  thai 
J  faid  true,  by  one  of  his  own  Whnt&s,  SalluJI  the  Philofopher. 

•  Div.  Leg.  Book  III.  Seft,  2.  &  feqq.  t  P.  63. 

Vol.  VI.  E  e  But, 


2^0  REMARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

Bur,  what  the  Reader  can  reafonably  wwg'tm,  upon  this  View  of  tha 
Evidence,  as  1  wouki  not  pretend  to  dhed  his  Judgment,  1  will  no? 
venture  to  affirm. 

IX. 

/  now  cotr.e  to  the  next  Principle  (fays  cur  Atkocate)  which  Mr. 
Warburton  lays  down  as  repugnant  to  the  Belief  of  a  future  State,  &c. 
which  is,  *♦  Thai  the  generality  of  the  Philofophers  held  the  Soul  to  be  a 
"  difcerpedPart  of  a  whole,  and  this  whole  was  God,  into  whom  it  was 
•♦  again  to  be  rejohed."  But  here  he  begins,  as  in  other 
Places,  to  express  his  Fears  '' that  the  Reader  will  fufpeB  {as 
"  1  am  apt  to  think  he  will)  thefe  Kind  of  Phrafes  are  highly 
'■^figurative  Exprefions,  and  not  to  be  meofured  by  the  fever  c  Standard 
"  ofmetaphyfical  Propriety  ;"  and  therefore  he  defires  the  Reader  to  take 
notice  of  another  Confequence  from  this  Principle,  which  is,  that  the 
Soul  was  eternal  a  parte  ante,,  as  well  as  a  parte  poft;  and  this,  as 
befiys,  was  umverfally  held  by  Antiquity,  though  he  attempts  to  bring 
but  one  Authority  to  prove  it,  which  he  fays  is  above  Exception  ;  aiid 
therefore  IJloall  tranfcnbe  it  out  of  his  own  Book,  as  he  quotes  it  from 
Cudworth,  that  the  Reader  may  the  better  judge  of  its  Validity,  "■  IH 
"  is  a  thing  very  well  known  (fays  the  great  Cudworth)  that  accord- 
«'  ing  to  the  Senfe  of  Philofophers  thefe  two  things  were  always  in- 
*■'■  eluded  together,  in  that  one  Opinicn  of  the  SouT s  Immortality,  name- 
"  ly  its  Prae-exiflence  as  well  as  its  Pfl-exiffence ;  neither  was  there 
"  ever  any  of  the  Ancients  before  Chriflianity,  that  held  the  Soul's 
«'  juture  Permanency  after  Death,  who  did  not  likcwife  ajfert  its  Pra- 
"  exi/lence  ;  they  clearly  perceiving,  that  if  it  was  once  granted  that 
«'  the  Soul  was  generated,  it  could  nev£r  be  proved  but  that 
"  it  might  alfo  be  corrupted:  And  therefore  the  AJferters  of  the 
*'  SouVs  Immortality  commonly  began  here  ;  fitfl  to  prove  its  Pra-exif- 
«♦  fence* y  Off." 

Here  (fays  he)  he  begins,  as  in  other  Places,  to  exprefs  his  Fears. 
This  is  tlic  fecond  Time  he  has  told  me  of  my  Fears.    And  without 

*  P.  64,  6s. 

Doubt 


I 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD.        zir 

Doubt  lie  took  me  in  good  earneft  for  fome  very  fearful  Animal^ 
or  he  would  never  have  ventured  fo  wantonly  to  infult  me.  But 
the  Reader  perhaps  may  be  curious  to  know  how  that  Writer  ex- 
prefles  his  Fears  of  his  own  Arguments,  who  has  been  reprefeiited 
by  the  Bigots  of  the  oppofite  Party,  as  defpifing  all  other  Men's. 
Th&  fearful  Paflage  is  in  thefe  Words  :  "  And  tliat  the  Reader  may 
*'  not  fufpedt  thefe  kind  of  Phrafes,  as  that  the  Soul  is  Part  of  God ; 
*'  dfcerped  from  him  ;  of  his  Nature,  which  perpetually  occur  in  the 
'*  Writings  of  the  Ancients,  to  be  only  highly  fgurative  ExpreJJi.ns, 
"  and  not  to  be  meafured  by  the  exaft  Standard  of  metaphyfical 
*'  Propriety  ;  he  is  defired  to  take  notice  of  one  Confequence  drawn 
*'  from  this  Principle,  and  univerfally  held  by  Antiquity,  wliich 
"  was  this,  that  the  Soul  was  eternal  li  parte  ante,  as  well  as  a  p  nte 
"  pof ;  which  the  Latins  well  expreffed  by  the  Word  Sempiter- 
**  mis*."  Does  the  Reader  find  any  of  that  Pafnon  here  which  our 
quick-fighted  Advocate  has  difcovered  ?  All  I  can  fay  to  the  Matter 
is,  that  as  it  is  the  Punilhment  oifree-aSiing  to  fear  for  one's  felf, 
inhere  no  fear  is  %  fo  it  is,  it  fcems,  the  ^Q\\^i:d  oi  free-thinking  xo 
fee  Fear  for  others  where  no  Fear  is. 

Well,  but  let  us  hear  what  he  has  to  fay  to  the  Pafiage  from 
Cudworth.  Now  I  readily  agree  (fays  he)  that  what  Cudvvorth//jj 
of  the  Philofophers  is  true-,  but  deny  that  what  Mr.  Warburton  quotes 
him  for,  can  any  ways  be  proved  from  thence ;  which  is,  that  the 
Philofophers  held  the  Soul  to  be  eternal  a  parte  ante  as  well  as  a  parte 
poft ;  and  indeed  there  is  not  one  Word  which  either  expreffes,  or, 
WITH  ANY  tolerable  PROPRIETY,  implies  any fuch  DoSlrine.  They 
held,  fays  Cudworth,  the  Soul's  Pm-exifence,  or  that  it  was  in  Being 
before  the  Body ;  but  it  will  immediately  occur  to  the  Reader, 
that  if  it  pra-exlfied  only  one  D  ly  or  one  Hour,  before  it  was  infufed 
into  the  Body,  it  really  pra-ex'fled  as  much,  though  not  fo  long,  as  if 
it  had  been  from  Eternity.     And  the  whole  Defgn  of  Cudworth  is  to 

*  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  II.  p.  104. 

Ee2  JjeWf 


21  a         REMARKS     ON    T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

finv,  that  the  Anaents  held  the  Soul  to  be  immorial.  For  this  Reafon 
amon^/l  others  that  it  uas  net  fropiig^ied  with  the  Body,  and  there- 
fore could  not  be  corrupted  'with  it ;  but  was  a  diJiinSl  Subjtance  from 
it,  for  that  it  pra-exiihd,  or  was  made  before  it,  as  he  proves  from 
a  PaJJ'jge  of  AuQioxXq.  Therefore  the  Doctrine  of  Prce-exifence  does 
not  in  the  leaf  prove  the  Soul  to  be  eternal  a  parte  ante  ;  much  lefs  that 
it  was  dfcerped  or  torn  from  God  in  a  literal  Scnfe  *.  Pity  me,  Reader  ! 
who  am  forced  into  a  Controverfy  with  an  Advocate  of  old  Philofo- 
thy,  who  has  not  yet  fo  much  as  learnt  his  firfl  Elements  either  in 
the  o/^  or  new.  Why,  thou  mighty  Man  of  Law  I  if  the  Ancients- 
were  to  prove  (as  in  this  Cafe  you  own  they  were)  that  the  Soul 
was  eternal  d parte pof  by  an  Argument  taken  from  its  Pra'Cxi/lence, 
and  that  it  was  an  acknowledged  Principle  (as  we  both  agree  it  was) 
that  ivhatfoevcr  was  generated  could  not  be  proved  to  be  incorruptible, 
muft  not  by  that  Prce-exifence  he  meant  an  eternal  Prae-exiftence  ? 
"For  if  there  were  a  Time  when  the  Soul  vizs generated,  tliough  many 
millions  of  Years  before  its  Entrance  into  the  Body,  it  could  not 
be  proved  to  be  eternal  d  parte  pof.  The  acknowledged  Principle 
that  whatever  was  generated  could  not  be  proved  to  be  incorruptible, 
forbidding  that  Conclufion.  For  the  Reader  muft  take  notice, 
their  Point  was  not  to  give  an  analogical  Probahilify  that  the  Soul 
funply  furvived  the  Body,  but  a  metaphyfical  Demonf  ration  that  it 
would  furvive/cr  ever.  And  let  him  not  imagine  that  our  Advo- 
cate has  only  miftaken  the  Queftion,  and  argued  right  from  the 
wrong  State  of  it.  He  delivers  it  truly  in  thefe  Words,  Ihe  whole 
Defgn  of  Cudworth  is  to  fhew,  that  the  Ancients  held  the  Soul  to  be 
IMMORTAL.  He  wanted,  we  fee,  no  Knowledge  of  the  particular 
Queftion  ;  all  his  Want  was  Want  of  common  Apprchenfion.  Yet 
Cudworth  thought  the  Argument  fo  obvious,  that  no  one,  who  was 
fit  to  read  his  Book,  could  poflibly  miftake  in  it :  and  therefore  con- 
tented himfelf  in  ufuig  Pra-exfence  fimply,  without  adding  eternal, 
as  tlie  Argument  neceffarily  determined  the  Mode  of  the  Pra- 
»  P.  6s,  66. 

exijlence. 


REMARKS    ON     T  I  L  L  A  R  D.         213 

exijlence.  Yet  has  he  at  length  got  a  Reader  who  is  fairly  able  to 
miftake  him,  and  who,  inftead  of  being  thankful  for  an  Explana- 
tion made,  as  it  appears,  for  his  peculiar  Uf?,  will  find  fault  with 
his  Inftruitor,  and  not  content  with  faying  that  there  is  not  one 
Word  in  Cud  worth,  •which  exprcffis  my  Senfe,  will  add,  that  there  is 
nothing  that  can  with  any  tolerable  Propriety  inply  it.  This  he  fays  ;. 
and  yet  (what  exceeds  Belief)  he  had  but  juft  before  tranfcribed 
thefe  very  Words  of  Cudworth :    They    clearly   pekceiving, 

THAT,  IF  IT  WAS  ONCE  GRANTED  THAT  THE  SoUL  WAS  GE- 
NERATED,   IT  COULD    NEVER    BE    PROVED,    BUT    THAT    IT    MIGHT 

ALSO  BE  CORRUPTED.  Now  if  he  would  not  fee  it,  is  he  fit  to 
write :  And,  if  he  could  not,  is  he  fit  to  be  read  ?  Who 
can  be  pofitive,  after  this,  that  he  ever  faw  Cudworih''s  Book, 
which  concludes  the  whole  Obfervation  in  thefe  Words  :  ♦'  The 
"  'Totum  or  Cotnpojitum  of  a  Man  or  Animal  may  be  faid  to  be- 
*'  generated  and  corrupted  m  regard  of  the  Union  and  Difunion, 
*«  Conjundion  and  Separation  of  thofe  two  Parts,  the  Soul  and 
"  Body.     But  the  Soul    itfelf,    according  to  thefe  Principles,    is 

♦'   NEITHER    A     THING     GENERABLE    NOR    CORRUPTIBLE  *."       Yet 

our  Advocate  tells  us,  the  whole  De^gii  of  Cudworth  is  to  /Jjeiv, 
that  the  Ancients  held  the  Soul  to  be  immortal  for  this  Reafon  aniongll 
others,  that  it  ivas  not  propagated  with  the  Body,  and  therefore  could 
%ot  be  corrupted  with  it.  Which  is  jufl  as  wife  a  Reafon  as  the  fol- 
lowing :  ^'he  laji  Lord  Mayor  of  London  will  live  a  thoufand  Tears, 
FOR  this  Reafon,  among/l  others,  that  he  was  in  being  before  his  En- 
trance on  his  Office,  and  exijled  after  his  going  out  of  it.  But  he 
has  all  the  Way  done  Wonders  with  his  for.  I  have  taken  upon 
me  to  dignify  feveral  of  them  with  Capitals  for  their  eminent- 
Services.  But  the  bold  Humour  of  the  EngUfo  is,  never  to  fpare 
this  Particle.  On  the  contrary,  the  French,  a  wife  People,  when 
the  Royal  Academy  was  founded  for  the  Advancement  of  Rloqnence, 
with  which  Reafon  had  little  to  do,  held  a  folemn  Seflions  for  the 
Extirpation  of  their  FOB,  car,  as  an  ufelefs  and  dangerous  Word^ 

*  Intell.  Syft.   p.   39. 

And 


2,4  REMARKS  ON  T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 
And  though  I  think  it  efcaped,  and  even  furvlved  the  Edi6l:  of 
Natt.'es  (notu'ithlbuding  all  the  Mifchief  it  had  done  the  Catho- 
lic Ciufe)  yet  their  prndent  Writers  are  extremely  referved  in  the 
Ule  of  this  and  all  other  their  illative  Panicles.  Feu  Gomberville 
(lays  one  of  their  Diaionary  Writers)  I?aiJo/f  le  mot  car,  parce^ 
difoit-i/f  qu'il  vencit  ciu  Grec.  The  late  Gomberville  hated  the  word 
CAR,  becauft\  as  he  [aid,  it  came  from  the  Greek.  How  happy  for 
us,  that  cur  roR  is  differently  defcended,  or  we  had  loft  a  great 
Rcafoner,  who  bears  as  thorough  an  Antipathy  to  Greek,  as  ever 
did  Monfit-ur  Gomberville  1 

He  goes  on,  ylnd  if  I  may  be  aUoived  to  argue  in  the  fame  Way  as 
Mr.  Warburton.  1  he  Public,  I  believe,  will  pardon  him,  let 
him  begin  when  he  will.  Well,  but  allow  him  to  do  what,  how- 
ever, we  are  never  to  expe£l  of  him,  to  talk  a  little  plain  Senfe ; 
what  then  r  Why  the  Ancients  could  notfriSlly  believe  this  'Dotirine 
[that  the  Soul  was  Part  of  GodJ,  becanfe  it  is  greatly  inconsistent 
ivith  another  ivell'hioin'n  Opinioti  amongfi  them,  that  Souls  "were  linked 
to  Bodies  for  a  Punifhment,  or  fent  down  as  into  a  State  of  Tryal. 
Now  for  his  Reafon. — For  to  fuppofe  in  the  grofs  Senfe,  that  Pieces 
or  Paris  of  the  ever  perfeSl  and  fupreme  God  ivere  fo  fervcd,    i  s 

WHAT  NO  ONE  WILL    IMAGINE    THE  PHILOSOPHERS  CAPABLE  OF*. 

For  is  here  again,  as  ufual,  on  very  defperate  Service.  He  Promifes 
to  fliew  the  Inconfifiency  between  two  metaphyseal  Opinions.  What 
Reader  uow  but  would  exped  a  metaphyfical  Reafon  ?  Inftead  of 
that,  h.e  puts  us  off  with  a  moral  one.  No  one  isoill  imagine  the  Phi- 
hfophers  capable  of  holding  both  thofe  Opinions.  And  to  finifh  the 
Abfurdity,  this  is  called  arguing  like  me,  in  an  Inftance  where 
I  proved  the  Meaning  of  a  metaphyfical  Term  by  a  metaphxfical 
Opinion.  If  I  may  be  al'owed^  fays  he,  to  argue  in  the  fame  Way 
as  Mr.  Warburton. 

2.  But  to  be  at  a  Word  with  him  and  his  Philofophers  together. 
What  both  are  capable  of  we  fhall  now  fee.     It  is  agreed  that 

*  P.  66,  67. 

Pythagoras 


REMARKS     ON    TILLARD.  irj 

Pythagoras  and  Plato  held  that  Souls  were  linked  to  Bodies  for  a  Pit- 
tiiJJjmenl,  orfent  down  as  into  a  State  of  Trial.  Yet  of  this  very 
Pythagoras  Cicero  fpeaks  thus:  Nam  Pythagoras,  qui  cenfuii 
ylnimum  eji  per  naturam  reruni  omnem  intenlum  &  commeantem  ex 
quo  nojlri  anivii  carperentur,  non  vidit  DiJiraBione  humanortiin 
ylfiiinorum  discerpi  et  lacerari  deum.  Of  Plato  and  his 
P'ollowers  ^;-«5^/«j  fpeaks  thus:  Ipfe  deni que  Animus  qui  immor- 
talis  a  'oobis  &  Deus  esse  narratur,  cur  in  Mgris  a-ger  ft,  in 
JnfantibusfoUduSy  in  SeneSlute  defjfus  ?  Delira  &  Jatua  G?  infana  ! 
Here  we  fee  what  two  great  Writers  of  Antiquity  thought  the  Philo- 
fophers  capable  of.  Was  he  ignorant  of  this  ?  No  ;  I  had  quoted 
them  in  the  Difcourfe  he  pretends  to  confute  *.  Did  he  attempt 
to  confute  them?  No ;  nor  a  great  Number  more  to  the  fame  Pur- 
pofe,  unlefs  this  may  be  called  a  Confutation,  And  we  may  obfrve^ 
that  some  of  his  Authorities  to  prove  this  are  exceedingly  f rained,  and, 
as  himfelf  acknowledges  more  than  once,  are  otherwife  underfiood  by 
learned  Men.  Some  ?  What  then  are  the  reft?  But  as  to  thcfe 
fome,  does  he  prove  what  he  fiys  ?  Yes  :  And  how  ?  By  quoting 
my  Acknowledgment,  that  they  are  differently  unde>food  by  learned 
Men.  And  now,  Reader  !  What  doil  thou  imagine  our  Advocat3 
capable  off 

He  goes  on.' — And  becaufe  the  Philofophers,  fpeaking  of  the  So7Uy. 
often  call  it  the  Image  of  God,  divine  and  immortal,  &c.  he  'would 
lead  the  Reader,  fromfuch  Expreffions,  unwarily  to  imagine,  that  it- 
was  literally  a  Part  of  God,  eternal  a  parte  ante,  the  fame  as  the 
Soul  of  the  World,  &c.  But  I  hope  to  make  the  Contrary  appear  by 
fome  plain  Tefimonies  of  Antiquity:  and  the  frfl  I  /l;a  II  produce  is  one 
Mr.  W.  himfelf  has  helped  me  to,  and  is  from  Stobajus,  where  Speu- 
fippus,  one  of  Plato's  Followers,  fys,  ♦'  that  the  Mind  was  neither: 

*  Divine  Legation  Vol.  II.  pp.  1 08,  no. 

'*  tha- 


2j6         remarks   on  tillard. 

*♦  the  fame  with  the  One  or  the  Good,  but  had  a  peculiar  Nature  of 
*♦  its  omn."  This,  Mr.  W.  owns,  exprejly  contradicts  what  he  ajferled 
of  Plato's  hMng  the  Soul  to  be  Part  of  God;  '*  but  be  fays  that 
*'  Stobxus  and  the  learned  Stanley  were  both  miflaken  in  thinking 
«♦  Speuiippusj^s/if  of  the  human  Mind,  whereas,  fays  he,  it  relates  to 
'«  the  third  Per/on  in  the  Trinity."  Now Juppofmg  zve  take  Mr.  War- 
burtou's  Judgment  before  that  of  Stobaeus  or  Stanley,  we  may  Jlill 
fairly  conclude,  that  if  even  the  third  Perfon  in  the  Trinity  was  not 
the  fame  as  God,  but  had  a  peculiar  Nature  of  his  own,  much  lefs 
was  the  Soul  of  Man  the  fame ;  but  that  it  had  a  diflinB  Nature 
likewife  *. — He  would  lead,  fays  he,  the  Reader  by  fuch  Expreffions 
•unwarily  to  Imagine,  that  it  was  literally  apart  of  God.  Hear  then, 
by  what  kind  of  Expreffions  I  would  miflead  the  unwary  Reader. 
A  natura  Deorum  (fays  Cicero)  ut  doSlilJimis  fapientijfimifque  placuit^ 
baujlos  animos  &  libatos  habemus.  And  again,  Humanus  autem  ani- 
mus decerptus  ex  Mente  divina,  cum  alio  nulla  nif  cum  ipfo  Deo  compa- 
parari  fotefi\. — He  will  not  difpute  whether  Stobeeus  and  Stanley, 
or  I,  be  in  the  right.  He  does  well.  But  then  he  fays.  We  may 
fill?Ai}<i.Y  CONCLUDE,  that  if  even  the  third  Perfon  in  the  Tri- 
nity was  not  the  fame  as  God,  but  had  a  peculiar  Nature  of  his  own, 
much  lefs  was  the  Soul  of  Man  the  fame ;  but  that  it  had  a  diJlinU 
Nature  likewife.  Such  a  Concluder  would  have  made  Ari/lotJe  for- 
fwear  Syllogifm.  In  the  4.04th  Page  of  the  firfl  Volume  of  the 
Divine  Legation  \  he  faw  thefe  Words  :  '*  Again,  the  Maintainers 
*'  of  the  Immateriality  of  the  Divine  Subftance  were  likewife  divided 
*<■  into  two  Parties ;  the  firfl  of  which  held  but  one  Perfon  in  the 
■"Godhead;  the  other /wo  or  three.     So   that  as  the  former 

*'  BELIEVED  THE  SoUL  TO  BE  PART  OF  THE  SUPREME  GoD  J  THE 
*'  LATTER  BELIEVED  IT   TO    BE    PART    ONLY   OF    THE    SECOND  OR 

"  THIRD  Hypostasis."  What  is  to  be  done  with  this  Prevarica- 
tor ?  Will  he  plead  guilty,  to  have  the  Benefit  of  his  Clergy  ?  Or 
will  he  own  he  could  not  read^  and  fo  fland  upon  his  Defence  : — 

*  P.  67,  68.         t  Div.  Leg.  vol.  II. p.  103.  J  Vol. II.  p.  102.  of  this  edition. 

"  You 


REMARTCS    ON    TILLARD.  217 

"  You  may  complain  (I  heir  lilm  fay)  but  wliofc  Fault  is  it  ?  You 
•*  had  put  this  Pallage  amoiigft  your  nice  Dipn^lons,  Divijions^  und 
"  Subdivijions :  And  thofe  I  was  not  obliged  to  take  notice  of,  after 
'*  having  fo  fairly  given  you  Warning  that  \  pajfed  over  al!  fuch  as 
*'  needle fs  Ciiriofities." 

But  I  begin  to  be  quite  weary  of  my  Advocate  ;  I  am  drawing  to- 
wards a  Conclufon  with  him,  and  will  difpatcli  him  with  all  poffible 
Expedition.  What  follows  won't  flay  us  long.  As  to  the  Pojjiigc 
"jchicb  he  quotes  from  M.  Antoninus,  //  is  nothing  more  than  an  Exhor- 
tation to  confukr  what  %vill  become  of  the  Soul  when  it  is  difunitcd  or 
feparated  from  the  Body  :  and  though  Mr.  W.. makes  him  to  fpcak  of 
its  being  refohed  into  the  Au'nwx  'Mun^'i;  yet  he  owns  at  the  fame 
7ime,  that  neither  Gztzker  in  his  Notes,  or  Cafaubon,  had  any  Notion 
that  the  Do^rine  of  Refufon  loas  here  alluded  to  *.  Ga taker  and 
Cafaubon  did  not  underftand  it  in  my  Senfe.  Docs  he  pretend  to 
fay  I  underftand  it  wrong  ?  He  pretends  to  know  nothing  of  the 
Matter :  So  I  leave  it  to  thofe  who  do.  For  I  fliould  have  a' 
ftrange  Love  for  anfwering,  if  I  gave  this  any  other  Reply  than 
Antonifius's  own  Words  :  "  [To  die]  is  not  only  according  to  the 
"  Courfe  of  Nature,  but  of  great  Ufe  to  it.  [We  ftiould  con- 
"  fider]  how  clofely  Man  is  united  to  the  Godhead,  and  in  what 
"  Part  of  him  that  Union  refides  ;  and  what  will  be  the  Condition 
*'  of  that  Part  or  Portion  of  it  when  it  is  refolved  [into  the  ^'fni- 
*'  ma  Mundi]  +." 

The  next  Authority  (fays  he)  I  fall  produce,  is  from  Plotinus, 
who  tells  us  that  the  Soul  is  from  God;  and  therefore  neccjjarily 
loves  him,  yet  it  is  a  dfcrent  Exi/lcnce  from  him.  Here  again  he 
plays  his  old  Trick  upon  us.  Plotinus,  a  Philofopher  deep  in  the 
Times  of  Chriftianity.  I  have  tried  in  vain  to  make  him  under- 
ftand. I  will  try  now  if  I  can  make  him  blufli  ;  while  he  forces 
me  to  repeat,  for  the  fecond  Time,  the  following  Words  of  the 
Divine  Legation.     "  Such  was  the  general  Doftrine  on  this  Point" 

*  p.  68.  t  Divine  Legation,  vol.  II.  p.   114. 

Vol.  VI.  F  f  [namely, 


2,8  REMARKS    ON     TILLARD. 

[namely,  thnt  the  Soul  was  God,  or  Part  of  God]  be.fore.the  com- 
lug  of  Chriftianity  ;  "  but  then  thofe  Philofophers,  who  held 
"  out  againft  its  Truth,  after  Tome  Time  new-modelled  both  their 
"  Philolophy  and  Religion  ;  making  their  Philofophy  more  reli- 
**  gious,  and  their  Religion  more  phllofophical. — So  amongfl:  the 
*'  many  Improvements  of  Paganlfm,  the  softening  this  Doc- 
*'  TniNE  WAS  ONE.  The  modern  Piatonifis  confining  the  Notion  of 
*■*  t/je  Sours  beifjg  Pari  of  the  Divine  Sulfunice  ty  that  of  Brutes. — 
"  And  it  is  remarkable  that  then,  and  not  till  then,  the  Philofo- 
"  phers  began  really  to  believe  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  *." 
How  true  this  is  we  may  fee  by  this  very  Quotation  from  Ploiinus, 
And  one  of  common  Apprehenfion  would  have  ieen,  by  his  Words, 
yet  it  is  a  diferent  Exf-snce  from  him,  that  this  was  an  Innovation 
in  Philofophy.  For  were  it  not  the  common  Opinion,  that  the 
Soul  was  of  the  fame  Ex  fence  with  God,  or  Part  of  him,  this  Cau- 
riou  and  Explanation  had  been  impertinent.  However,  he  goes  on 
unmercifully  to  fhew  the  Orthodoxy  of  Plotinus,  and  of  his  Com- 
mentator  Ficintis,  m  this  Point:  Where  fpeaking  I  don't  know 
what,  nor  why,  of  the  vegetative  Sou/y  he  takes  an  Opportunity 
to  criticife  a  Pafiage  I  brought  from  Plutarch^  Of  this  Soul  [namely 
the  vegetative']  it  is  of  ivhich  Plutarch  manifeftJy  fpeaks^  ivhere  he 
Jays,  "  that  Pythagoras  and  Plato  held  the  Soul  to  be  immortal ;  for* 
"  that  launching  out  into  the  Soul  of  the  Univerfe,  it  returned  to  its 
"  Parent  and  Original.'^  That  this  must  be  intended  of  the 
VEGETATIVE  SouL  IS  VLAiti,  f'om  his  mentioning  two  other  Souls 
from  the  fame  Authorities,  immediately  after  in  a  quite  different  Light. 
"  Pythagoras  ^«i  Plato,  fays  he,  hold  that  the  rational  Soul  is  im- 
"  mortal',  for  that  this  Soul  is  not  Cod,  but  the  IVorkmanf/ip  of  the 
♦'  Eternal  God ;  and  it  is  the  irrational  Soul  which  is  mortal  and  cor- 
"  ruptibky  So  that  unlefs  we  can  fuppofe  Plutarch  intended  to  make 
Pythagoras  and  Plato  contradict  them/elves,  we  miifl  conclude  their 
Opinions  in  this  Pajfage  to  be,  that  the  vegetative  Soul  was  difufed 

*  Divine  Legation,  vol.11,  p.  ii6. 

into 


RExMARKS     ON    T  1  L  L  A  R  D.  2,,; 

into  the  Life  of  the  Univerfe  ;  that  the  fenjilive  or  ir rational  Soul  i^'as 
mortal  and  corruptible  ;  and  that  the  rational  Soul  was  a  di/liiiB  Exif- 
tence  made  by  God.  But  this  laft  Part  is  not  at  all  talan  notice  of  by 
Mr.  Warburton,  though  in  the  very  fame  Paragraph  ivith  the  firfl 
•which  he  quotes  *. 

1.  Utiiefsivecanfuppofe  (fays  he)  Vlul^xch  intetided  to  make  Vy- 
thagoras  and  Plato  contradiSl  themfelvcs.  Suppofe,  Quotha  !  Did 
lie  never  hear  that  this  Plutarch  wrote  an  exprefs  Treattfe  on  the 
ContradiSlions  of  the  Stoics?  A  Sed  of  as  good  a  Houfc  as  either 
Pythagoras  or  Plato.  Will  he  never  fee,  that  if  the  Philofophers 
had  a  double  Dodrlne,  which  he  has  laboured  to  prove,  they  muft 
perpetually  contradi^  thcmfelves  ?  But  our  Advocate  is  fo  captivated 
a  Lover  -j-,  fo  enamoured  of  his  dear  Philolbphers,  that  the  very 
Air  ot  a  Contradidion  fhocks  him. 

2.  Well  then,  not  to  difguft  the  Delicacy  of  a  Lover,  I  will 
humour  him.  It  fhall  be  no  Contradiftlon  ;  nor  will  \fuppofe  Plu- 
tarch fuch  a  Brutal  as  to  infmuote  any  thing  fo  grofs.  But  now, 
if,  like  a  true  Inamorato,  he  will  not  fuffer  them  to  be  defended  by 
any  Hand  but  his  own,  then  we  (hall  begin  to  differ.  He  tells  us 
that  when  Plutarch  fays  Pythagoras  and  Plato  held  the  Soul  to  be 
immortal,  it  is  plain  this  must  be  intended  of  the  vege- 
tative Soul, — An  immortal  vegetative  Soul  I  'Tis  a  Prodigy 
that  deferves  an  Expiation.  But  to  know  whether  Plutarch  or  our 
Advocate  be  the  real  Father  of  this  Monfter,  it  will  be  Jieceflary  to 
tranfcribe  the  whole  Chapter  :  "  Pythagoras  and  Plato  held  the 
"  Soul  to  be  immortal ;  for  that  lauching  out  into  the  Soul  of  the 
"  Univerfe,  it  returns  to  its  Parent  jtnd  Original,  The  Stoics  fay, 
"  that  on  its  leaving  the  Body,  the  more  infirm  (that  is,  the  Soul  of 
*'  the  Ignorant)  fufFers  the  Lot  of  the  Body  :  But  the  more  vigo- 
*'  rous  fthat  is,  the  Soul  of  the  IVifeJ  endures  to  the  Conflagration. 
*'  Dcinocritus  and  Epicurus  fay  the  Soul  Is  mortal,  and  perifhes 
"  with  the  Body ;  Pythagoras  and  Plato,  that  the  rcafonable  Soul 

*  P.  70,  71.  i  T.  v.  of  the  Preface. 

Ff2  «'ls 


2:o         REMARKS     ON     TILLARD. 

<'  Is  vmcornipt  (for  it  is  to  be  ohferved,  the  Soul  is  not  God,  hut  the 
•«  JVnrhmanjlip  of  the  Eternal  God)  and  the  irrational  mortal." 
nu?«>cV«»»  n>.«'7i'y,  a^fdafjov  eTmt  t>/V  ^vx-^.V  llt^a-av  yx^  slg  to  t2 
•a-di']:;  ^UXX"  (Xiccxi'>pe~»  Tirpog  to  e/zoyss'Sf.  0^  IItuiko),  ep^tS<rciv  ruv  auy.oc- 
']'jiv  VTro(phsSxi,  TV  filv  acKtvi^icuv  clf^a.  TO?g  crvfKpi[A,uo-i  yivio^c-i.  (joiVT'ip 
It  tTvut  Tuv  uTTctihCTuv)  TTJv  Si  l(rxvpoji^ctv,  cl'a.  sf)  i^ef »  t^;  (rc(p^g,  ^  f^sx^' 
Tvf  eKTrvptia-iMS.  AyifJ-oKpij®^,  'E-Trlxisp®^,  (pdx^^v,  tu  <ru^<»jt  avvStupde:- 
ecpiv.rv.  UvGocycpoii  ?u  VLXciTUv,  to  |W£>  XoFikov,  a(p5cifjav  (KAI  TAP  Ty,v 
^UXV",  »  ^^oV,  eHxx'  epyov  rS  ul'^ia  &£»  ^Trapyji^j)  ro  S=  uXoyov,  (pSap- 
7c'y.  ITff*  Tuv  Apea-.  reTg  (ptX.  DibA.  S'.  K.  ^.  Here  we  fee,  the  Soul 
firft  mentioned,  and  faid  to  be  immortal^  and  to  lanch  out  into 
the  Soul  of  the  Univerfe,  was  the  fame  which  the  Stoics  held  to 
endure,  when  it  had  been  in  their  wife  Man,  till  the  Conflagration  ; 
was  the  flime  which  Dtmocrilus  and  Epicurus  held  to  be  mortaL 
And  was  this  the  vegetative  Soul  r  Iiow  hard  has  the  World 
dealt  with  Dcmocritits  and  Epicurus  for  twenty  round  Ages,  only 
for  holding  that  the 'U^^c'/^/Zu^  «Si??//  was  mortal?  A  very  reafon- 
able  Opinion,  had  there  been  any  vegetative  Soul  at  all.  But  what 
then  mufl:  we  fay  to  the  ContradiSlion,  which  I  have  promifed  to 
remove,  and  which  fecms  now  quite  fixed,  fince  we  have  evapo- 
rated this  Spirit  of  vegetative  Immortality^  from  the  Paflage  ?  The 
plain  Solution  of  the  Difficulty  is  this  :  When  Plutarch  had  men- 
tioned the  impious  Notion  of  the  Soul's  Mortality,  firft  ftarted  by 
Derr.ocritus  and  Epicurus,  he  oppofes  it  by  that  of  Pythagoras 
and  Plato.  He  had  told  us  before,  that  thefe  held  the  Soul  to  be 
immortal:  But  now,  ufing  their  Authority  to  confute  the  other 
two,  he,  like  a  judicious  Writer,  explains  it  with  more  Exadl- 
ncfs.  He  tells  us,  that  Pythagoras  and  Plato  held  the  reafonabk 
Soul  to  be  immortal,  the  irrational  mortal.  When,  in  the  Be- 
ginning of  the  Chapter,  he  had  faid,  they  held  the  Soul  to  be 
immortal,  he  added  their  Reafon,  For  that  launching  out.  Sec.  TAP 
IK  TO  r5  srocfjci,  &c.  Now  here,  in  the  Conclufion,  mentioning 
again  the  fame  Dogma,  he  adds  his  own.  For  it  is  to  he  ohferved 

the 


REMARKS     ON     TILLARD.  221 

the  Soul  is  not  Gody  Sec.  KAI  TAP  tijV  4"^%>)'v,  &c.  For  Plutarch 
had,  with  the  refl  of  tlie  Pliilofophers  of  the  Chrlftian  Times, 
refnied  his  Notions  on  this  Matter  :  They  faid,  the  Soul  was  im- 
mortal ,  becaufe  it  was  related  to  the  Soul  of  theUniverfe  :  He  faid,  it 
ivas  immortal,  hecaufe  it  ivas  the  Work  of  God.  Henry  Stephens,  who, 
it  feems  probable,  faw  this  was  Plutarch'' s,  and  not  Pythagoras's  or 
Plato's  Philofophy,  makes  the  Words  it^  yol^  tijV  ■i^vx'riv  «'  ^£o\  «^x«  t* 
ccl'^in  ^sS  uTrd^x^iv')  a  Paren'thefis,  as  he  does  TuvTrjv  §6  eTvui  twv  «Va(- 
(5'su'rw;)  and  as  he  fliould  have  done  ol'ca  l^]  •zcteoJ  t«j  <ro(p^g;  both, 
which  are  the  explanatory  Remarks  of  Plutarch.  And  now  it  is 
to  be  hoped  our  Advocate  fees  why  this  lafl  Part  ivas  not  at  all 
taken  notice  of  by  Mr.  Warburton  though  in  the  very  fame  Paragraph 
tvith  the  firfl  ivhich  he.  quoted.  But  what  does  he  now  fee  of  his 
ConiradiSlion  ? 

We  have  f^id  what  it  was  that  induced  Plula'xh  to  interfere 
with  his  own  Opinion  in  this  Matter.  The  very  fame  Concerii 
for  the  Orthodoxy  of  old  Pagan  Philofophy  (then  to  be  oppofed  to 
Chrifl-ianity)  that  now  teems  to  diftrefs  our  Advocate.  The  very 
lame  that  made  Plotinus  cry  out,  as  above,  "The  Soul  neceffiirily  loves 
God,  yet  is  a  diferent  Exifience  from  him.  And  this  will  account 
for  Plutarch'' s  labouring  fo  much  as  he  does,  in  the  Place  -quotetl 
by  our  Advocate,  at  his  75th  Page,  to  free  Plato  from  the  Charge 
of  making  the  Soul  eternal  and  uncreated.  For  a  Charge,  it  feems, 
it  was,  and  a  heavy  one  too,  upon  him.  Now  where  Plutarch 
performs  the  faithful  Office  of  an  Hlftorian,  in  delivering  us  tha 
Placits  of  the  old  Philofophers,  there,  we  fee,  he  owns  both  Py- 
thagoras and  Plato  held  this  Opinion  ;  but  here,  where  he  ads 
the  Advocate,  \  mean  of  old  Pagan  Philofophy,  he  endeavours  to 
difiinguifl}  away  the  Accufation.  Thus  at  length  we  fee  the  Cj;/-> 
tradition  lies  at  Plutarch'' s  Door  ;  which  will  require  more  than  a. 
vegetative  Immortality  to  remove  :   Leguleio  dignus  vindice  Nodus-. 

Thefe  three  Paffages,  from  Stobaus,  M.  Antoninus,  and  Plutarch^ 
are  the  only  three  of  the  great  Number  I  brought  to  prove  the 
Greek  Philofophers  held  the  Soul  to  be  Part  of  God,  which  our 

Advocate 


222  -REMARKS    ON    TILLARD. 

Advocate  has  ventured  to  undertake.  Thefc  he  thouglit  he  could 
nv.mgc :  And  Envy  muft  own  lie  has  acquitted  himfelf  to  Admi- 
ration. 

XI. 

But  that  Phio  was  orthodox  in  this  Point,  he  will  now  fliew 
from  P/ato  himfelf. — And  that  this  was  Plato's  Opinion  (fays  he) 
concerning  the  human  rational  Soul ^  I JJiall  further  prove— frotn  hitn- 
fclf. — In  one  Place  he  Jays,  "  IVe  have  /poke  ma/i  truly  in  ajferting  the 
*'  Soul  was  made  before  the  Body,  and  the  Body  in  the  fecond Place,  and 
*'  after  the  Soul,  forafmuch  as  the  governing  Part  ought  in  Point  of 
■"  Time  to  be  created  before  that  which  is  governed^'^  Where  fays 
he  this  ?  Where  think  you  but  in  the  old  Place,  his  Book  of  haws? 
It  is  an  odd  Fancy  this,  in  our  Advocate,  to  go  fo  continually  to  a 
Book  of  Laws  for  Plato's  religious  Sentiments.  Law  and  Gofpel,  let 
me  tell  him,  agreed  no  better  formerly  than  they  do  now.  But 
he  muft  needs  go  as  his  Index  led  him.  Which  in  this  Road  always 
points  exoterically.  Let  us  follow  him  then  into  his  Warehoufe  of 
Laws.  Here,  to  our  great  Surprize,  we  find,  that  Plato  is  not 
fpeaking  of  the  Origin  of  the  human  rational  Soul,  but  of  a  very 
difi'ercnt  Thing.  This  tenth  Book  of  Laws,  from  whence  he  t.ikes 
his  Quotation,  is  employed  to  prove  the  Being  of  a  God  againft 
Atheifm.  One  of  his  Arguments,  for  z\\  eternal  Mind,  is,  That 
that  is  the  firft  efficient  Caufe  which  moves  Itfelf  and  all  other  Things. 
But  Mind  moves  itfelf  and  all  other  Things:  Therefore  Mind  is 
the  firft  efficient.  Hence,  in  the  Words  of  the  Quotation,  it  is  in- 
ferred, That  the  Soul  was  before  the  Body,  '^uxriv  ^Iv  sypole^xv  ysfo/svat 
4ruiA.(^<^  ri^ry.  And  farther,  that  there  is  one  general  Soul  or  Mind, 
that  governs  the  Univerfe,  Tu;^;>,V  II  UzS^a',  Iv  '^-na^n  ror?  -uruv^yi  ^tiv^i- 
f*£>oiff  r.^LU)l  n  X.  To\  »j«yo\  cxvccyKvi  Swix^lv  (pami ;  Now,  who  fees  not  that 
it  was  Plato's  Bufmefs  here,  to  ftiew  only  in  the  AhpaSi,  that  Mind 
was  prior  to  Body ;  and  altogether  befides  his  Purpofe  to  fpeak  of 
the  Origin  of  the  human  Soul  ?     Yet  our  Advocate,  mifled  by  the 

Latin 


REMARKS     ON    T  1  L  L  A  R  D.  223 

Latin  Tranflator,  and  unaided  by  any  Difcernment  of  his  own, 
makes  P/^/c'i  Words  relate  to  the  Creation  of  the  Soul.  That  the 
Soul  ii'as  MADE  before  the  Body  ;  Animum  ante  Corpus  ¥  act  v  :m  ful/fe. 
But  Fliito  in  his  Epinoniis,  referring  to  this  very  Place,  explains 
the  Meaning  In  thefe  Words  t  That  every  Soul  is  elder  than  every 
Body  ;  'oTi  Ts-^nr^UTi^ov  el'ij  4'"%^'  crwf*a7©-  ctTracra.  zira-fjcg.  Yet  was  this. 
Pailage  fo  far  from  helping  our  Advocate  to  the  true  Senfe  of  his 
Quotation,  that  he  even  refers  to  it  for  the  Confirmation  of  his 
Miflake.  All  therefore  that  Plato's  Argument  required  was  to 
prove,  that  Mind  was  before  Body.  But  had  he  thought  proper  to 
digrefs  about  the  Origin  of  the  Soul,  he  muft  needs  have  made  it 
iingenerated,  from  a  Principle  he  lays  down  in  this  very  Place, 
namely.  That  the  Soulivas  a  felf-movingSuhJlance  ;   To  £«J]o  x-^'vi~v  <PiV 

for  a  felf-moving  and  an  eternal-moving  Subftancc  were  the  fame 
Thing  amongft  the  Ancients.  So  Plutarch  tells  us,^  that  Thales  was 
the  firjl  ivho  taught  the  Soul  to  be  an  eternal  moiing  or  felf-moving 
Nature,  ©ciXr/j  tzTrs^rivoclo  -zir^^TfS^  Tr,v  if'^^'J"  (pua-iv  cciniiJvilBV '  H  auVc^aj;— 
TOV  *. 

Our  Advocate  goes  on  with  his  Plato :  In  another  Place  (fays  he)> 
God,  after  having  made  //6^  Angels,  is  introduced  as  delivering  them- 
Materials  to  form  Man  and  other  Animals,  and  as  f peaking  to  them 
in  this  Manner:  "  Go  to  then,  turn yourfelf  to  the  Formation  of  Ani- 
'•  malsy  according  to  tin  haws  of  Nature,  and  imitate  that  efficacious 
*'  Power  which  I  myjelf  ufed  in  your  ProduSlion;  and  f  nee  they  will 
«'  be  created  as  it  ijuere  Fellow- Citizens  ivith yourfelves,  theyfhall  be 
"  efeemed  of  divine  Extrail,  and  f  Jail  have  Dominion  over  all  ether 
"  Creatures  f-'* 

1.  God,  after  having  made  the  Angels  (fays  he).  Would  the- 
Reader  know  what  Sort  oi  Angels  he  has  here  to  do  with  ?  Our 
Advocate  is  filent.  But  honefi:  Plato  tells  us  their  Names  :  Saturny 
Rhea,  Jupiter,  Juno,  and  the  reft  of  the  Pagan  Gods  and  Demons^ 

*  Plat.  Phil..  1.  4.  c.  2.  t  1-  72» 


22+        REMARKS    O  N    T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

TUp\  Si  TU¥  aXXuv  ^xi[/.ovujv  el-rreTi. — Vvs  re  k,  Ov^ccvS  srarhg  'Xljceai/o?  re  k, 
Tr5Jf  lyivia-Siiv'  lie  rirujv  Se,  <:>ooKvg  ts  ^  Kpo'i'©^  x,  'Pea,  ^C.  But  if 
Philofophirs  are  to  pais  for  Apojlles^  why  may  not  Heathen  Gods 
ftniid  for  y^«?f/j  .?  Of  thefe  hsly  Angels  Plato  fays  it  would  be  Im- 
piety not  to  believe  what  the  ancient  Mythologifts  taught  concerning 
them,  riEIZTEON  Ti  roTg  el^'^xotrtv  iiz-v^oaSev,  Iv^yovoig  fiev  ^euv  mriv  cc; 
'ipxTxv,  a-xipZg  OB  'STU  rig  aJrouv  ZTpoyovag  Bioia-iv'  aovvctjov  isv  ^tcov  waiTtv 
ciTn^i'y.  Being  now  in  the  Humour,  he  tells  us,  that  when  God 
created  Souls  he  difpofed  them  amongjl  the  Stars :  ^ug-f^rxg  J'e  to  z^av 

SiBT}.i  i|/'j%«V  tir(Xo!d[/,i!g  ToTg  ag-^oig,  Efei/^f^'  exxg-riv  -upog  sycixg-ov  •  'That 
they  fuffered  •Trajtfmigration  into  Brutes — h9cx  x,  etg  ^i^pfa  jStov  (xv&pw 
'TtUfl  ipy^;;  uimvehar  fJi.r,  tstojot^ev©^  os  Iv  Turotg  bti  Kuziceg,  rpoTrov  ov 
z%Kcvoi]o  v.xTK  T4V  of/.oioT'^x  T^g  tS  t^ottk  yBVKrBug,  £(f  TiVK  rotavTTiv  cisl 
iJifiU^ocXXi:  9rpiK  <pua-iv.  And  is  not  this  a  likely  Place  to  find  Plato's 
real  Sentiments  concerning  the  Soul  ? 

2.  But  what  do  we  talk  of  his  real  Sentiments  ?  The  Book, 
from  whence  our  Advocate  brings  tliis  Paffage,  contnins  not  Plato's 
Sentiments  at  all,  but  another  Man's,  one  Timaus  Locrns,  ofwhofe 
Book,  de  Anima  Mundi^  this  Work  of  Plato  s  is  a  Comment.  The 
Paflage  in  Queilion,  particularly,  being  a  Paraphrafe  on  thefe  Words 
oi  Titnaus,,  META  %l  txv  tw  nca-^u  (riig-uinv,  £5c  *. 

But  our  Advocate,  now  grievoufly  bemired,  yet  flounders  on. — 
And  again  Plato  much  to  the  same  Purpose  says,  '■'■that  after 
•'  God  had  formed  the  World  y  he  a  I ht  ted  the  human  Soul  to  be  difpofed 
^' of  by  Nature,  as  his  Vicegerent  f"  &c.  Can  the  Reader  now 
guefs  whither  we  are  fent  to  look  for  thefe  Words  ? — To  3  P/at. 
99.  D.  which  fairly  brings  us  a  Mile  beyond  Plato,  to  a  Treatife  of 
Tiniaus  Locrus,  intituled  De  Anima  Mundi.  The  fwallowing  Sigonius 
for  Cicero  was  a  Trifle  to  this  Exploit.  Here  he  faw  writ  in  fair 
Latin  Charaders,  over  the  Page,  T/w^/  Locri  de  Anima  Mundi.  If 
one  did  not  know  him,  one  (hould  take  him  to  be  of  the  Humour  of 
that  Critic,  who  had  a  great  mind  that  every  thing  thai  was  good 

*  Plato  Sen.  Vol.  III.  p.  99.  |  p.  ,3. 

floould 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD.        225 

Jldould be  his  Favourite  Authors.  But  he  was  puzzled  with  the  two 
Titles.  One  was,  the  Titnaus  of  Plato ;  the  other,  the  minima 
Mundi  of  Timaus.  This  was  the  deep  Problem  of  tl^  Horfe-mill^ 
and  Mill-horfe :  But  the  beft  of  the  Story  is,  he  here  again  (as  in 
the  former  Cafe  of  the  Book  of  Laws  and  EpinomisJ  brings  thcfe 
Words  oiTitnaus  to  confirm  his  Senfe  of  the  foregoing  Quotation 
from  the  Timaeus  of  Plato  ;  and  fays,  as  well  he  might,  Uis  much 
to  the  fame  Purpofe.  This  I  remark  to  the  Honour  of  his  Penetra- 
tion. For  though  he  did  not  know  one  was  the  Text,  and  the  other 
the  Comment,  yet  he  found  out  by  mere  Dint  of  Sagacity,  that  they 
were  very  near  a-kin.  And  this  is  all  the  Fruit  of  his  Flatcnlc 
Journey.  Unhappy  Advocate  !  What  a  Progrefs  haft  thou  made! 
from  Flato  nothing  to  the  Purpofe,  to  no  Plato  at  all  !  But  we  had 
beft  ftop  here,  left  the  next  Quotation  (hould  be  from  No  Body,  And 
indeed  'tis  next  to  no  body  ;  'tis  from  Apukius,  a  Writer  in  the  Chrif- 
tian  Times.     A  Trick,  now  too  ftale  even  to  laugh  at. 

We  are  come  at  laft  to  our  Advocate's  Peroration.  And  to  fay 
the  Truth,  it  was  Time  for  him  to  have  done.  Therefore,  after  all 
this  (fays  he)  A/r.  Warburton  need  not  any  longer  admire,  &c.  No 
truly,  he  has  eafed  me  of  this  Paffion,  The  Admiring  at  a  Free- 
thinker.— It  is  very  true,  that  fome  few  ExpreJJions  now  and.  then 
may  be  found  in  the  Writings  of  thePhilofophers,  as,  that  the  Soul  is  a 
Part  cf  God;  comes  from  God  ;  is  difcerped from  him  ;  is  a  Ray  of  the 
Divinity  ;  is  one  with  God,  Cs'c.  if  taken  in  a  fridi  literal  Senfe, 
might  in  fome  Meafure  anfwer  Mr.  Warburton's  Purpofe:  But 
WHEN  THE  LITERAL  Sense  IS  PLAINLY  ABSURD,  and  the  Contrary 
maintained  by  a  Multitude  of  clear  ExpreJJions,  we  of  courfe  undofland 
<f/6w/ FIGURATIVELY  *.  Without  doubt.  So  that  when  we  are 
told  Epicurus  held  the  Sun  and  Moon  to  be  no  bigger  than  they 
feem ;  Pyrro,  that  nothing  could  be  known  ;  and  Zeno,  that  all 
Crimes  were  equal  ;  the  literal  Senfe  being  plainly  abfurd;  we  rauft 
believe  nothing  of  the  Matter.     But  as  he  hath  talked  oiihtfgu- 

*  P.  7S.  76. 
Vol.  VI.  G  g  rativc 


326         REMARKS    ON     T  I  L  L  A  R  D. 

ratlve  Terms  of  a  Language,  in  which  he  underftands  no  Terms 
at  all,  he  fliould  now  lenrn  to  hold  his  Tongue,  and  hearken  to 
his  Teachers.  The  great  Gajfendi  was  incomparably  the  beft  verfed 
in  ancient  Greek  Philofophy  of  any  Man  in  thefe  latter  Ages,  and 
he  never  dreamt  of  this  more  ihzn  figurative  Folly  of  our  Advocate. 
He  knew  the  Greek  and  Latin  Expreflions  would  bear  no  fuch  In- 
terpretation :  And  therefore  tells  us  roundly,  that  there  was  fcarce 
an  ancient  Philofopher,  who  was  not  what  we  now  call  a  Spinoziji. 
••  Interim  (fays  he)  tamen  vix  Vhhifuere  (qua  human ce  Mentis  Cali' 
"  go,  atque  Imbeciltitas  ejlj  qui  non  inciderint  in  Errorem  ilium  de 
*'RefusioneinAnimam  Mundi.      Nimirum,  Jicut  exijiimarunt 

•'  SINGULORUM    AniMAS    PARTICULAS    ESSE    AnIM^    MuNDANjE, 

•*  quarum  qualihet  fuo  Corpore,  ut  Aqua  Vafe,  includeretur  ;  ita  &  re- 
*'  putarunt  unamquamque  Animam,  Corpore  dijfoluio,  qunji  diffraSloVafe, 
*'  cffiiiere,  ac  ANiMffi  Mundi  e  qua  deducta  fuerit,  iterum 
*'  UNIRI  *." 

And  now,  after  all  that  has  paffed  between  us,  I  may  be  allowed 
at  parting  to  afk  my  namelefs  Adverfiuy  what  he  is  ?  His  betters, 
when  they  went  incognito,  have  been  thus  queftioned,  and  without 
Offence.  The  great /^^y/^-v^or^i  himfelf  was  afked  it ;  and  his  An- 
fwer  will  fit  our  Advocate  as  if  it  had  been  made  for  him.  And 
that  he  may  not  be  forced  to  defcend  from  his  prefent  Dignity  of 
Quotation,  I  will  prefs  him  no  farther,  but  fuppofehe  gives  an  En- 
quirer this,  that  his  ancient  Mafter  made  to  Leon,  Prince  of  the 
Pbllafiam,  who  a(ked  him  what  he  was.  Art  (fays  he)  /  know 
none;  but  /<?»;  a  Philosopher  -f. 

XII. 

Let  us  conclude  with  a  general  View  of  our  Advocate's  Perfor- 
mances. He  will  write  againft  the  I'hird  Book  of  the  Divine  Lega- 
tion o/Mofes  ;  But  propofes  only  to  confider  what  in  his  Apprehen- 

*  Divine  Lcgat.  Vol.  U.  p.  106. 

t  Artem  quidcm  fe  fcire  nullara;  fed  effe  Philofophum.  Ck.Tufc.  Difp.  1.  5.  c.  3. 

Jion 


REMARKS     ON    TILLARD.  227 

Jion  affects  the  Argument.  Yet  of  this  little^  for  his  Apprehenfon  is 
not  nniclj^  he  has  not  confidered  one  tenth  Part.  And  how  that 
abounds  in  all  kind  of  falfe  Reafoning,  and  abfurd  Sluotation,  we 
have  given  the  Reader  a  kind  of  Specimen.  But  to  make  amends 
for  an  imperfed  Reprefentation,  he  may  be  pleafed  to  take  notice, 
that,  befides  all  particular  local  Graces,  there  are  four  general 
Fallacies,  that  run  throughout  this  noble  Work.  Two  in  Point 
of  flotation,  two  of  Reajoning. 

I.  The  firft  Is  in  quoting  Poets,  or  any  body,  inftead  of  Phllo- 
fophers. 

II.  The  fecond  in  quoting  Phllofphers  after  Chr'ijl. 

III.  The  third  in  urging  exoteric  Do6lrincs  for  efoleric. 

IV.  And  the  fourth  in  concluding  from  what  was  faid  oi  falfc 
Gods,  to  what  they  thought  of  the  true. 

I  call  thefe  by  the  knavlfh  Title  the  Schools  of  Phllofophy  have 
given  them,  which,  like  the  Courts  of  Law ^  make  no  Provifion  for 
Fools ;  But,  upon  my  Word,  I  am  not  fluisfied  whether  they  be 
not  very  honeft  Blunders.  However,  he  has  now  his  Choice  to 
call  them  what  he  will,  fo  he  no  longer  pretend  to  call  them  Ar- 
guments, 

H\s JiiJ?  Chapter,  as!  faid,  is  the  only  one  with  which  I  am  con- 
cerned. His  fecond  is  Intituled,  T6e  Opiniofis  of  the  Philofophers  con- 
cerning a  future  State.  It  Is  made  up  of  fome  fix  dozen  of  lU-chofeii 
Quotations,  which  fo  amazed  him  that  he  could  not  forbear  faying 
on  the  Entrance  to  his  Labour,  It  feems  very  furprizing^  mfwith- 
(landing  all  the  follo'wing  Authorities^  and  many  more  which  no  doubt 
this  learned  Gentleman  muf  have  met  with  to  the  contrary,  that  hejljould 
thus  /peak  of  the  Philofophers  :  ^^  I  have  examined  their  Writings  with 
*«  all  the  Exa^nefs  I  was  able,  and  it  appears  evident  to  me  that  thefe 
"  Men  believed  nothing  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifjments^ 
**  which  they  mojl  indufirioujly  propagated  in  Society  *."  ]iy  this 
*  P.  2. 
G  g  a  Time, 


ii8  REMARKS    ON    TILLARD. 

Time,  1  fuppofe,  I  have  eafed  him  of  his  Surprize  :  So  that  we  are 
now  even  by  a  reciprocal  Cure.  In  one  Point  however  he  is  right. 
He  luppolcs  I  couUl  have  funii(hed  him  with  many  more  Authorities, 
1  could,  I'll  afl'urc  him:  More  than  with  fix  hundred  to  his  (ix 
dozen.  But  it  is  pleafant  to  obferve,  in  this  Chapter  of  Rotations., 
with  what  Judgment  he  brings  in  three  Epicureans,  Virgil,  Lucian, 
and  Ce/fus,  to  bear  Witnefs  to  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifh- 
ments,  who  without  doubt  helitved  what  they  faid.  Honeft  Celjus 
cries  out,  under  the  Majk  and  in  the  Tone  of  a  modern  Free-thinker, 
God  forbid,  that  either  they,  or  I,  or  any  Man  living,  fiould  endea- 
vour tofulrvert  the  Belief  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punijh- 
menti  *.  Who,  when  he  hears  this,  can  forbear  concluding  with 
our  Advocate — //^y,  when  a  Man  talks  in  this  manner,  it  is  hardly 
fofible  not  to  imagine  him  in  Earnef  -{-. 

I  call  this  his  Chapter  of  'flotations.  It  is  its  proper  Title  :  It  is 
made  up  of  them,  and  a  jolly  Company  they  are,  but  fo  tranfcen- 
dently  chofen  and  tranflated,  thatfome  Time  or  other  it  may  chance 
to  become  as  famous  as  Scarrons  Chapter  of  H^rfe-Litters,  which 
once,  indeed,  on  a  Time  met  together  becaufe  they  were  forced ; 
but  for  all  that  each  of  them,  while  in  the  Difpolal  of  their  Own- 
ers, was  taking  a  different  Road.  At  prefent  I  fliall  only  defire  the 
Reader  to  obferve,  that  the  three  firft  of  the  four  general  Sophifms 
fliine  throughout  this  Chapter  with  a  diftinguilhed  Luftre. 

He  has  two  more  Chapters  upon  fomething  or  other ;  and  then 
concludes  with  a  Paftoral- Letter  to  the  Free-thiiikers,  Vt  sobrii  ad 
tvcrtendam  Rempublieam  Chrijiianam  accederent. 

Thus  it  hath  been  my  Fortune  to  difpleafe  the  Bigots  on  both 
Sides.  I  make  no  Queftion,  but  the  impartial  Reader  will  be 
ready  to  congratulate  with  me  on  fo  fair  an  Appearance  of  being 
in  the  Right. 

As  for  this  fantaftic  Zealot  in  the  Caufe  of  Paganifm,  I  have 
ufed  him,  it  is  true,  with  little  Ceremony.  Let  the  Reader  judge, 
if  he  deferved  more.     I  had  put  my  Name  to  what  I  wrote,  and  he 

*  P-'Sa.  .    t  P.  82. 

attacks 


REMARKS    ON    TILLARD.  229 

attacks  me  In  fecret.  Had  either  I  concealed  mine,  or  he  told  his, 
he  might  then  have  expcdled  (if  on  other  Accounts  he  had  a  Right 
to  it)  what  the  ufual  Commerce  of  Civility  demands  between  People 
upon  equal  Terms  :  But  writing  without  a  Name,  in  the  Manner 
he  has  done,  is  leaft  of  all  excufable.  For,  when  a  Man's  Perfoa 
or  Reputation  is  attacked,  I  know  little  Difference  between  the  Ruf- 
fian, and  the  Writer,  in  the  Dark. 

I  may  be  the  rather  allowed  to  fpeak  freely  on  tliis  Head,  begaufe 
I  never  yet  wrote  againft  any  Book  or  Author  whatfoever,  any 
farther  than  occafioual  Refledions  on  particular  Queftions,  whicit 
no  one  can  avoid  who  treats  of  Subjefts  like  thofe  I  am  engaged  in.. 
Once  indeed,  and  but  once,  I  took  upon  myfelf  the  Honour  oi de- 
fending a  fublime  Genius  againft  the  Cavils  of  an  injurious  Pedant,. 
But  an  Attack  by  Anfwa-y  Remarks,  Confutation,,  or  any  of  the  for- 
mal Apparatus  of  literary  Aflault,  1  never  made  on  any  Author 
whatfoever.  To  fay  the  Truth,  I  prize  my  Eafe  and  Quiet  at  too 
high  a  Rate,  to  hazard  them  in  the  Vain  or  intercfled  Employment 

of  difcrediting  any  Popular  or  Party  Writer  whatfoever. Nee 

quJfquam  noceat  Cupido  vnhi  Pads  ! 

I  (hould  now,  perhaps,  crave  Pardon  of  the  feverer  Reader  for 
the  Levities  that  have  efcaped  me  both  here  and  in  the  Preface.  But 
if  he  that  lofes  may  have  leave  to  fpeak,  fure  he  that's  libell'd  though 
he  lofes  nothing,  may  have  leave  to  laugh.  And  what  elfe  was  to 
be  done  with  my  DotJor  and  Student  ?  who,  whether  they  railed  or 
reafoned,  how  much  foever  in  their  own  Profeffions,  were  flill  on. 
the  wrong  Side  common  Senfe  and  common  Honefty.  For  they 
have  managed  Things  fo  well,  that  the  one  has  loft  his  Reafoning  in 
the  Study  ot  the  haw,  and  the  other  his  Charity  in  Defence  of  the 
Gofpel.  Befides,  on  fome  Occafions,  what  Mortal  can  forbear  ?  Who 
would  have  fufpefted  our  folemn  tragic  Doctor  for  a  rifble  Animal?' 
Yet  there  are  Seafons,  when  his  own  Blunders  difpofe  him  to  be 
jocular,  and  he  Irreverently  alms  at  Wit  with  the  Face  of  an  Iiifix 
Inquifitor  *. 

*  See  The  Weekly  MifccUany  throughout. 


230  REMARKS    ON    TIL  LARD. 

Ill  Conchirioii,  If  any  Man  (to  ufe  the  Words  of  a  great  Writer) 
KQUAL  TO  THE  Matter  *,  Jl.'all  think  it  appertains  him  to  take  in 
Hand  this  Controverfy,  either  excepting  againji  aught  written,  or  per- 
fuaiied  he  can  pciv  better  how  this  ^lepon  may  receive  a  true  Deter- 
mination ;  if  his  Intents  befmcere  to  the  Public  y  and  pall  carry  him  on 
•without  Bitterness  to  the  Opinion  or  to  the  Person  dijfenting,  let 
him  net,  I  intrcat  him,  guefs  by  the  Handling  which  meritorioiijly  hath 
been  be/lowed  on  thefe  Objedls  of  Contempt  and  Laughter,  that  I  account 
it  any  Difphwfure  done  to  me  to  be  contradioied  in  Print :  But  as  it 
leads  to  the  Attainment  of  any  thing  more  true^Jliallefteem  it  a  Benefit', 
and  f}  all  know  how  to  return  his  Civility  and  fair  Argument  in 
Juch  Sort,  as  he  pall  confefs  that  to  dofo  is  my  Choice,  and  to  have  done 
thus  was  my  Chance. 


*  Mr.  Chubb,  I  am  told,  has  addrefled  fomething  or  other  to  me  at  the  End  of  his 
late  Difcourfe  on  Miracles.  I  fuppofe  he  only  wants  my  Acknowledgments  ;  and  he 
fliall  have  them  :  For  the  reafon  above  (liews  why  I  muft  always  decline  his  kind  Over* 
turcs  of  farther  Acquaintance.  I  ccnfcfs  then  he  is  a  very  extraordinary  Perfnn  :  and 
think  he  may  fay  with  the  fubtil  Peafant  in  Moliere — Oui,  fi  j'avois  ctudic,  j'aurois  etc 
fongcr  i  des  cholcs  ou  I'on  n'a  jamais  fongc. 


POST- 


[     231     ] 


.POSTSCRIPT    TO    THE    REMARKS,. 

Ill  Anfwcr  to  fome  Objections  of  Dr.  S  Y  K  E  S^ 


TO  put  Things  of  a  Sort  together,  I  ftiall  take  this  Occafloa 
to  pay  my  Refpeds  to  the  Author  of  the  Principles  and  Con- 
nexion of  natural  and  reveaied  Religion'^-,  who  has  honoured  me,  m 
pafling,  with  a  couple  of  random  Reflexions.  A  kind  of  Fatality 
leems  to  attend  thefe  Gentlemen  ;  who,  when  I  lie  fo  open  to  them, 
have  flill  the  Luck  to  offer  at  me  in  the  wrong  Place. 

In  his  399th  Page  he  has  thefe  Words  :  "  It  is  not  of  any  Mo- 
"  ment  to  enter  further  into  what  Phllofophers  have  faid,  when- 
"  they  attempt  to  account  for  the  Soul's  Eternity.  Common  Senfe 
"  taught  them,  that  real  proper  Punifhments  were  inflided  upon 
*'  Men  for  Sins.  Who  can  read  Plato's  Gorgias  (which  is  not 
"  ranked  amongft  the  Exoterics  by  a  late  Writer,  in  which  alons- 
"  the  Doflrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments,  he 
**  thinks,  are  [is]  detailed  out)  ;  who  can  rea.1  that,  and  conceive  that 
"  Plato  did  not  really  believe  a  State  of  future  Punlfhments  and 
*'  Rewards  ?  When  he  had  profefl'ed  at  large,  how  wicked  Mea 
"  are  puniflied,  and  how  good  Men  are  rewarded  in  a  future  S.ate,, 
"  he  declares  That  to  be  his  full  Perfunfon,  and  from  thence  it  was^ 

*  Arthur  Afliley  Sj-kes,  D,  D. 


232  REMARKS    ON    S  Y  K  E  S. 

■*«  that  he  enJeavctired  to  appear  before  his  Judge  having  a  tnojl  pure 
••  Soul.  And  if  they  imagined  Men  to  he  punipedjor  S//j,  and  re- 
♦♦  wardidfor  Virtue^  even  fuppofing  this  was  talked  of  in  a  Way 
*'  that  might  be  proved  fabulous,  yet  the  Doftrine  itfelf  was  un- 
"  fliaken.  Suppofe  the  Fables  of  Acheron^  and  Styx,  and  Cocytus, 
*'  and  ElyfiVt  Fields,  may  be  all  demonftrated  to  be  falfe ;  yet  it 
«'  does  not  follow,  that  the  Thing  conveyed  under  thefe  Words 
*'  were  {was]  believed  to  be  all  falfe.  It  does  not  follow  that  Souls 
"  were  believed  to  die,  or  to  be  uncapable  of  receiving  Punifli- 
*'  ments  or  Rewards  :  but  only  that  this  Manner  of  reprefenting 
♦'  them  is  falfe*." — Thefe  are  his  Words;  and  they  deferve  to  be 
well  confidercd. 

It  is  net  oj  any  Mcim  nt  (he  fays)  to  enter  further  into  what  Phi- 
lofophers  have /aid,  when  they  attempt  to  account  for  the  SouPs  Eter- 
nity. 1  thought  it  of  great  Moment.  I  am  fure  I  found  it  of 
great  Difficulty.  And  if  I  have  ill  explained  what  the  Philofophers 
meant  by  the  Soul's  Eternity,  one  Reafon  was,  that  1  wanted  more 
Helps  than  Antiquity  would  afford  me.  But  it  is  the  Privilege  of 
veteran  Difputers,  to  want  nothing  but  willing  Hearers.  But  why 
will  he  enter  no  further,  when  he  goes  out  of  his  Way  to  pay  me 
this  Vifit  ? 

Becaufe  common  Senfe  (he  fays)  taught  them,  that  real  proper  Punijh- 
ments  ivere  inflidlea  upon  Men  for  Sins.  I  have  fhewn  from  Fa6i  that 
common  Senfe  did  not  teach  them.  No  matter  :  He  will  prove 
from  Reafon  that  it  did.  His  Argument  is  plain  and  fimple.  Com- 
mon Senfe  might  teach  them :  therefore  common  Senfe  did  teach 
them.  This  it  is  to  be  a  praftifed  Difputant.  It  is  but  knowing 
what  common  Senfe  might  teach,  and  he  will  prefently  tell  you,  by 
his  Scale  of  Logic,  what  it  did.  Qy  the  fame  way,  I  make  no 
doubt,  he  could  prove  that  the  Epicureans  believed  a  Providence  ; 
the  Stoics  Inequality  of  Crimes ;  and  the  Pyrrhonians  the  Certainty 
of  Truth.     He  has  only  to  fhew  that  cotumon  Senfe  taught  them,  or 

*  P.  400, 


REMARKS     ON     SYKES.  233 

was  ready  to  teach  them  ;  nnd  we  have  only  to  believe,  that  they 
were  as  ready  to  learn.  I  iiad  myfelf  a  kind  of  Guefs,  that  common 
Senfe  might  have  taught  the  Philojophers  that  real  proper  PuniJJjtnents 
were  Infixed  upon  Men  fir  Sins ',  and  had  I  known  no  more  of  An- 
tiquity than  this  Writer  has  entered  into,  'tis  ten  to  one  but  I  had 
concluded  as  he  does,  that  common  Senfe  did  teach  them.  Though 
hardly,  I  think,  after  another  had  clearly  (hewn  the  Contrary  from 
Antiquity.  However,  the  Reader  may  not  be  difpleafed  to  hear 
how  much  I  gave  to  common  Senfe  in  the  Introdudlion  to  my  Dif- 
courfe  on  the  Philofophers.  Thefe  were  my  Words  : — •"  It  will  be 
'*  proper  to  premife,  that  the  Conftitution  of  the  Greek  Philofo- 
"  phy  being  above  meafure  refined  and  fpeculatlve,  it  always  ufed 
"  to  be  determined  by  metaphyfcal  rather  than  moral  Principles ; 
*'  and  to  flick  to  all  Confequences,  how  abfurd  foever,  that  were 
"  feen  to  arife  from  fuch  Principles,     Of  this  we  have  a  famous 

"  Inflance  in  the  ancient  Dcmocritic  Philofophy,  &c. So  well 

"  fupported,  we  fee,  is  that  Cenfure  which  a  celebrated  French 
"  Writer  paffes  upon  them  :  JVhen  the  Philofophers  once  befot  them- 
'-^  f elves  with  a  Prejudice,  they  are  even  more  incurable  than  the 
"  People  themfelves :  becaufe  they  befot  themfelves  not  only  with  the 
«'  Prejudice,  but  ivith  the  falfe  Reafoning  employed  to  fupport  it. 
*'  The  Reverence  and  regard  to  meiaphyfical  Principles  being  fo 
"  great,  we  {hall  fee,  that  the  Greek  Philofophers  mull:  of  neceflity 
«'  reject  the  Dodrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punidiments, 
*'  how  many  invincible  moral  Arguments  foever  there  really  be  in 
*'  Support  of  it,  when  we  come  to  flievv,  that  there  were  two  meta- 
"  phyfical  Principles  concerning  God  and  the  S'aiI,  univerfally  em- 
"  braced  by  all,  which  neceflarily  exclude  all  Notion  of  a  future 
"  State  of  Reward  and  PuniHiment  *." 

In  the  Conclufon  I  repeat  the  fame  Obfervation  in  the  following 
Words  : — "  Thefe  two  Errors  in  the  metaphyfical  Speculations  of 
"  the  Philofophers,  concerning  the  Nature  of  God  and  of  the  Soul, 

*  Div.  Leg.  vol.  II.  p.  86. 

Vol.  VI.  H  h  "  were 


234  REMARKS     ON     S  Y  K  E  S. 

••  were  what  neceflarlly  kept  them  from  giving  Credit  to  a  !!)o6trine 
•«  highlv  probable  in  itlllf,  and  rendered  lo  even  by  themfelves, 
♦♦  from  many  moral  Confiderations,  perpetually  preached  up  to  the 
♦*  People,  l^ut,  as  we  obferved  before,  it  was  their  ill  Fate  to  be 
•*  determined,  iu  tliclr  Opinions,  rather  by  7?ictaph\/ical  than  moral 
••  Arguments.  This  is  feen  by  comparing  the  Belief  and  Condud 
«•  of  Socrates  with  the  reH:.  Fie  was  fingular  in  confining  himfelf 
«'  to  the  Study  of  Morality,  and  as  fingular  in  believing  thu  Doc- 
•»  trine  of  a  future  State  of  Reward  and  Punifliment.  What  could 
•'  be  the  Caufc  of  this  latter  Singularity  but  the  former  ?  Of  which. 
•'  it  was  a  natural  Confequence.  For,  having  thrown  afide  all 
"  other  Speculations,  he  had  nothing  to  mlflead  him.  Whereas  the 
"  reft  of  the  Philofophers  applying  themfelves,  with  a  kind  of  Fa- 
•♦  nntlcifm,  to  Phyfics  and  Metaphyfics,  had  drawn  a  Number  of 
'*  abfurd,  though  fiUjtile  CoiiClufions,  that  diredtly  oppofed  the 
"  Coiikquences  of  thofe  moral  Arguments.  And  as  it  is  common 
♦*  for  Parents  to  be  fondeft  of  their  weakefl:  and  mofl  deformed  OfFs- 
"  P"""'?'  ^°  thefe  Men,  as  we  faid,  were  always  more  Iwayed  by 
'*  their  metaphyfical  than  moral  Conclufions  *."  Now  this  was  all 
I  could,  in  Confcieiice,  allow  to  common  Senfc^  when  Antiquity 
ftood  fo  direftly  in  my  Way. 

But  left  it  Ihould  be  faid  he  had  overlooked  all  Fail,  he 
has  thought  fit  to  make  the  following  Obfervation :  Who  can- 
read  Plato's  Gorgias  (which-  is  not  ranked  amongji  the  Exotericy 
by  a  late  Writer,  tn  which  alone  the  DoSiritie  of  a  future  State  of  Re- 
•uards  and  Pun  foment  Sy  he  thinks,  is  detailed  out)  ;  who  can  read  that, 
and  conceive  that  Plato  did  not  really  believe,  &c.  The  Force  of 
this  Obfervation,  the  Reader  fees,  lies  in  the  Parenthefis,  that  I 
have  not  ranked  the  Gorgias  o/Plato  amongfi  his  Exoterics..  But  how, 
if  this  be  falfe  ?  Let  the  following  Words  of  the  Divine  Legation 
determine :  "  It  is  very  true,  that,  in  his  Writings,  he  [Plato]  in- 
*'  culcatcs  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  PuniOi- 

*  Divine  Legation,  vol.11,  p.  13.:. 

"  ments ; 


REMARKS     ON     SYKES,  235 

**  meiits;  but  this  always  in  the  grofleH:  Senfe  of  the  Populace, — 
*'  that  the  Souls  of  ill  Men  ciefcended  into  Ajfes  or  Sivine, — that  the 
"  uninitiated  lay  in  Mire  and  Filth  :  that  there  were  three  Judges 
*' of  Hell  ;  and  talks  much  of  iS'/j'.v,  Cccytus,  Acheron^  &c.  and  all 
*'  fo  ferioufly  as  fhews  he  had  a  niind  to  be  believed.  But  did  he 
"  himfelf  believe  them  ?  We  may  be  a.Tured  he  did  not  *."  Where, 
at  the  'Wovd  ferioufly,  I  expreffly  refer  to  the  Gorgias,  Phcedo,  and 
Republic.  Now,  if  the  Ph.-edo  and  Rep-.blic  (as  he  will  not  deny) 
be  of  the  exoteric  Kind,  and  1  place  the  Gorgias  in  the  fame  Clafs, 
is  not  this  ranking  the  Gorgias  amongfl  the  Exoterics  ?  What  then  was 
it  that  could  induce  this  Writer  to  fay,  I  had  not  ranked  it  there  ? 
Was  it  the  following  Paflage  ?  "  But  Albinus^  an  old  Platonijl, 
*'  has,  in  fotne  mcajure^  fupplied  this  Lofs  [namely,  the  Lofs  of  a 
"  Treatife  of  Numenius,  concerning  the  i'ecret  Do6lrine  of  Plat'o] 
*'  by  his  Introdudtion  fo  the  Dialogues  of  Plato.  From  whence  it 
"  appears,  that  thofe  very  Books,  in  which  Plato  details  out  the 
"  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  of  Reward  and  Punifhment,  are  all  of 
*'  the  exoteric  Kind.  For  in  that  Clafs  Albinus  ra^iks  the  Criton, 
*'  Phcedo,  Minos,  Sympojlum,  Laws,  Epiftles,  Epinomis,  Mcnexenus, 
*«  Clitophon,  and  Philebus  f-"  If  tliis  were  the  Paflage,  'tis  plain  the 
Writer  miflook  the  latter  Part  for  a  formal  Lift  of  Plato  s  exoteric 
W^ritings.  But  the  very  Words  might  have  taught  him  better : 
(I  only  fay  that  in  that  Clafs  Albinus  ranks  fuch  and  fuch  Trafts  ) 
Efpecially  if  he  had  looked  into  the  Difcourfe  referred  to :  where 
he  would  have  found  the  Reafon  why  I  exprefled  myfelf  in  that 
Manner.  And  I  don't  ufe  to  write  at  hazard,  as  hafly  as  he 
thinks  me.  Albinus,  in  his  fifth  Sediou,  divides  PlaPJ's  Dia- 
logues into  Clafles.  Not  into  the  two  general  ones  of  exoteric 
and  efoteric;  but  into  the  more  minute,  and  different,  o^  natural, 
moral,  dialeSlic,  confutative,  civil,  explorative,  obfletric,  atidfubverfve  |. 

*   Div.  I.eg.  vol.  II.  p.  64.  t    Ibid.  p.  6i. 

T^  il  xsu^xmif, tJ  Je  (x«i!i/l.xJ, tJ  Si  «.1j£jrVJ.    Alb.  Introd.  in  Pint.  Dial.  Seft.  5. 

apud  Fabr.  Bibl.  Grxc.  lib.  3.  c.  z, 

Hh    2  It 


i^6  R  E  M  A  R  K  S     O  N    S  Y  K  E  S. 

Jt  will  be  aflcctl  then,  how  I  came  to  fay,  that  Minus  ranked  the  Cri- 
titi,  Vbada,  Minos,  Syni[>cfum,  Laws,  Ep'fJes,  Eplnomis,  Menexenus, 
Clitophon  and  PbjUbuSy  in  the  exoteric  Clafs  ?  For  this  plaui  Reaibn, 
he  fays  they  were  all  of  the  civil  Kind.  And  I  hope  I  need  not  tell 
the  learned  Reader,  that  all  of  that  Khid  were  exotcrical.  And  now 
it  is  fcen  why  I  migl)t  well  fuppofe  the  Gorgias  of  t.he  exoteric  Kind  ; 
and  yet,  why  I  could  not  w{&Albinuss  Authority  for  placing  it  with 
the  reft  :  Becaufe  it  is  evidently  of  the  civil  Clafs,  and  yet  not 
ranked  there  by  that  old  Platonifl.  The  Reafon  of  his  different 
Aflignment  was  tiiis :  The  Gorgias  is  a  Dialogue  concerning  the 
\]it  and  Abufe  of  Rhetoric.  The  Sophifts  had  abufed  this  Art  to 
pervert  public  Juftice,  and  to  amafs  Wealth  and  Power.  They  are 
here  (hewn  that  its  true  Ufe  was  to  aid  and  in  force  the  Laws,  and 
to  render  the  Members  of  a  Community  wifer  and  better.  Hence, 
in  Conclufion,  the  Author  takes  occafion  to  inforce  the  Practice  of 
Virtue  from  the  Confideration  oi  future  Rewards  and  Funijhments  : 
his  uf\ial  Manner  of  concluding  his  political  Difcourfes  ;  the  Gor^ 
gias  being,  indeed,  properly  a  Supplement  to  the  Books  of  L.anjo  and 
Republic :  But  it  being  at  the  fame  time  altogether  employed  in 
overturning  the  Pradice  of  the  Sop  hi/is,-  was,  1  fuppofe,  the  Reafon 
why  A'bitius  thought  it  came  more  naturally  into  that  Clafs  which 
he  calls  Jubverjive.  This  is  a  true  Account  of  the  Gorgias  ;  as 
well  as  of  my  plain  Sentiments,  concerning  it,  in  the  firft  Volume 
of  Tlic  Divine  Legation.  .  And  yet  this  Writer  cries  out,  IVho  can 
read  the  Gorgias,  and  conceive  that  Plato  did  not  really  believe  afti- 
lure  State  of  Rewards  and  PuniJI-menls?  Rather,  let  me  afk,  Who 
that  has  read  the  Gorgias,  can  talk  at  this  rate  ? 

Well,  but  his  Reafon  :  "  When  he  [P/^/o]  had  profeffed  at  large, 
"  how  wicked  Men  are  punifhed,  and  how  good  Men  are  rewarded 
"  in  a  future  State,  he  declares  that  to  be  his  full  Ferfuafion,  and 
^^  from  thence  it  was,  that  he  endeavoured  to  appear  before  his  Judge 
•'  having  a  inojl  pure  Soul:'  The  original  is,  'Eyci;  ^Iv  ^v,  u  Ko^XXi- 
K\ui,  TnO  TOTTHN  TXIN  AOrXlN  ws7rB,<rf^x>,  g  (T^ottw  cttco; 
(pocvufj-oct   TO)  K^fir  ce'f   Cyieg-uTriv    ly^uv   r-qv    -^uxnv.       Here,    we    fee, 

the 


UTIC 


REMARKS     ON    S  Y  K  E  ?.  27,y 

the  Writer  has  funk  upon  us  the  important  Words  t/Vo   r^Tm  tuv 
Xoycav,   upon   which  the  whole  Sentence  turns.     This  could  hardly 
be  by  Chance.     The  Realons  of  the  OmifTion  are  but  too  evident. 
'Eyw  ij.lv  h,    u  KoiKKUcKstg,  TOO  TOTTIIN  T^N  AOrilN  -STBTrua-fAuiy 
I  am  fier/uai/ed  (fays  the  Speaker)  O  Callicles,  on  the  Authority 
OF  THESE  Doctrines.     Say  you  fo  ?     To  underftand  then  how 
full  .the   Perfuafion   was,  we   niuft  confider  what  Credibility   thefe 
DoStrifies  had.     Now  he  that  reads  the  Gorgias  will  find,  that  they 
coniifted  of  a  long  fabulous  Account  oi  the  EJlabl'iJloment  of  the  three 
fudges  of  Hell*  :  And  of  a  (Irange  Opinion,  that  the  Dead  not  only 
retained  the  vifible  Marks  of  the  Paflions  and  Affedions  of  the  Soul, 
but  alfo  the  Scars  and  Blemiflies  of  the  Body  -j-.     It  was  on  the  Au- 
thority,   therefore,   of   thefe  goodly   Dodrines,    that  the  Speaker 
founds  his   Belief:    and   what   is   more,  it   was  to  thefe  Dodlrines 
that  the  very  Words,  in   which  he  expreffes  this   Belief,  '^allude  : 
''A-!rc(pa,vS<xat   tu  KPITH;,   relating  to  the  infernal  Judges;  and   the 
TriE2TATHN  t>i\   ^vx^v,    the  mrf  found  or   healthy  Soul,    to   its 
Affcdlions,   Marks  and  Blemifhcs.     The  Speaker  therefore  niuft  of 
eourfe  believe  a  future  State  thus  circumftanced,  if  he  believed  any 
future  State  at  all.     Here  is  no  room  for  the  Writer's  Evafion  :  who 
fuppofes  the  Fhilofophers  might  reje£i  the  Fables  of  Acheron,  and 
Styx,  and  Cocytus,  and  Elyfian  Fields,  and  yet  believe  the   Thing 
conveyed  under  thefe  Words.     For  here  the  Belief  of  the  Thing  is  ex- 
prefly  faid  to  be  built  on  the  Authority  of  thofe  Fables :  But  thofe 
Fables  our  Author  gives  up  as  not  really  believed.     By  his  PYvour 
therefore  I  would  conclude  that  the  Thing  built  upon   them  was 
not  believed. 

But  as  i  little  thought  this  Waiter  would  have  had  the  better 
of  me  on  the  believing  Side,  I  will  fuppofe,  as  he  does  contrary  to 
Evidence,  that  the  Speaker  did  indeed  hi  this  Place  deliver  hii  real. 

*  Tom.  I.  p.  523.  Ed.  Serr.      See  Div.  Leg.  vol.  I.  p.  271,  &  Teq. 
f  Plato,  lit  fiipni,  torn.  1.  p.  524.     See  Div.  Leg.  vol.  L  p.  276, 


a38  R  E  M  A  R  K  S     O  N     S  Y  K  E  S. 

Sentiments.  Let  us  fee  now  what  will  come  of  it.  He  afks,  Who 
can  read  //vGorgins,  and  concave,  that  VX^Wodid  not  really  bdieve — ■ 

ivhtn  he  has proj'ljed at  large. So  then  ;  the  Dlfpute  between  us 

•.S  Whether  Plato  believed  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifti- 
mcnts  ?  And,  to  prove  that  Plato  did,  he  gives  nie  a  Speech  of 
Socrates.  For  unluckily  what  he  quotes  for  the  Words  oi  Plato 
arc  the  Words  of  his  Majlcr  ;  who,  I  have  endeavoured  to  fhevv,  by- 
better  Realons  than  fucli  a  kind  of  Speech,  did  really  believe  a  future 
State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments. 

But  he  goes  on  : — And  if  they  imagined  Men  tet  he  pumped 
for  5'>/,  and  rewarded  /or  Virtue,  even  fuppofing  that  this  icas  talked 
of  in  a  ITay  that  might  be  proved  fabulous,  yet  the  Do£irine  itfelf 
was  unfjahen.  Without  doubt,  if  I  will  allow  they  imagined  a  fu- 
ture State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments,  he  will  prove  they  believed 
one ;  that  being  the  Conclufion  he  feems  to  aim  at  in  the  aukwj.rd 
Expreflion  of — proved  fabulous,  and — was  un/ljaken.  For  the  Point 
between  us  is  not  about  what  was  true  or  fa  If e,  but  about  what  was 
believed  or  difielieved.  But  he  himfelf  Teems  diflatlsfied  with  his 
Exprefnon,  and  therefore  attempts  to  mend  it  in  this  Repetition 
(for  it  would  be  hard  that  he  who  begs  his  Queflion,  fhould  not  be 
able  to  get  to  his  Conclufion).  Snppofc  the  Fables  0/ Acheron,  and 
Styx,  <jn^  Cocytus,  tfw^i  Elyfian  Fields,  wwj;  <5f  ^// demonstrated 
10  befalfe,  yet  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  Thing  conveyed  under  thefe 
I  Tor  ds -u>as  believed  to  be  allfalfe.  Here  again  his  Words,  demon- 
f  rated  to  be  filfe,  leave  him  jufl:  where  he  was.  For  nothing  can 
be  concluded  concerning  the  Philofophers  believing  or  not  believing 
a  Thing,  from  our  demonf  rating  it  to  be  true  or  falfe.  His  Expref* 
fion  fails  him  here  again.  He  therefore  attempts  it  a  third  time.  // 
does  not  folloxv,  that  Souls  were  believed  to  die,  or  to  be  uncapable  of 
receiving  Punijlments  or  Rewards,  but  only  that  this  manner  of  repre- 
fenting  them  is  false.  As  ill  as  ever!  He  is  flill  in  the  very 
Place  where  he  fet  out.  And  that  which  at  firft  ib  perplexed  him 
has  ftuck  by  him  through  all  his  Variation  of  Phrafe  —  Zf////e",  for, 
ivas  not  believed.     As  if  the  Philofophers  muft  needs  difbelieve  all 

that 


R E  MARKS    ON    S  Y  K  E  S.  -3^ 

tliat  was  falfe,  and  believe  all  that  was  true.  And  indeed  it  fcems 
to  have  been  this  flrange  Piepoflefiion  that  has  made  him  run  into, 
all  his  Confufion  of  Langua;>c.  A  Difeafe  that  fatally  infcded  the 
Lawyer  of  late  Memory.  I  put  his  exprefuons  in  the  moft  favour- 
able Light.  For  if  there  be  no  Blunder,  there  is  much  Malice  :. 
The  Period  (fuppofing  the  Words  accurate)  tending  to  prove  the 
C/Ti?V^/7//y  of  a  Future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments;  which, 
being  dire^^ed  againft  my  Difcourfe,  necelTarily  infinuates,  that  I 
had  wrote  fomething  againft  that  Credibility.  But  I  have  too'  good- 
Opinion  of  his  Honefty,  to  believe  this  to  be  his  lecret  Pur- 
pofe. 

What  therefore  this  Writer  fo  fruitlefsly  labours  to  bring  forth,  is- 
this  (imple  Conception,  That  the  Philofophers  might  believe  the 
Dodrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Puniihments  in  general, 
and  yet  difbelieve  all  the  particular  Fables  of  the  Populace  concern- 
ijig  it.  Rut  thofe  wlio  are  acquainted  with  Antiquitj^,  will  know,, 
that  this  was  not,  and  could  not  be  the  Cafe.  1  have  given  a  Reafon. 
in  thefirfl:  Volume  *  oiThc  Divine  Legation,  to  fhew,  /'/  ivas  not,  in, 
thefe  Words :  "  We  have  given  jufl  above  a  Quotation  from  TuUys. 
*'  Oration  for  Cluentius,  in  which  he  having  ridiculed  the  popular 
*'  Fables  concerning  a  future  State,  fubjoins.  If  thefe  be  falfe,  as  ali 
'■'■  Men  fee  they  are,  what  halh  Death  deprived  us  of  befides  a  Senfe  of 
*'  Fain  ?  Nam  nunc  quidem  quid  tandem  illi  mali  Mors  attulit  ^ 
*'  Nifi  forte  ineptiis  ac  fjuhuUs  ducimur,  ut  exillimemus  ilium  apud  In- 
''  feros  Impiorum  fupplicia  perferre,  &c.  ^cs  fi  falfa  funt ,  id  quod 
*'  omnes  intelligimt,  quid  ei  tandem  aliud  Mors  eripuit  prater  fenfum: 
♦'  doloris  ?  From  this  Inference  oi  Cicero's  it  appears,  that  we  have 
"  not  coiicluded  amifs,  when,  from  feveral  Quotations,  interfpeifed. 
*'  throughout  this  Work,  in  which  a  Difbelief  of  tiie  common  Notion. 
"  of  a  future  Stateof  Rewards  and  Punifliments  is  implied,  we  have 
"  inferred  the  Writer's  Disbelief  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and 
"  Punishments  in   general."     There  are   many   Reafons  likew.ife, 

*  Div.  Leg.  ed   410,  vol,  II.  p.  83, 

why 


,4o  REMARKS    ON    SYKES. 

why  it  could  mt  be  the  Cafe ;  too  long  indeed  to  mention  here  ;  how- 
ever, I  will  juO  hint  at  one.  The  Pagan  Notion  of  a  future  State 
o*"  Rewards  and  PunlHimcnts  was  founded  in  old  Tradition  :  But 
tiiat  Tradition,  which  conveyed  down  the  general  DoaHne,  brought 
along  thefe  Circuwjr.nces  of  ir.  But  I  forget,  that  I  am  arguing 
with  an  Enemy  to  all  Tradition  :  Who,  as  highly  as  he  advances 
the  Knowledge  of  the  Philofophers,  yet  is  unwilling  to  allow  they 
were  indebted  for  it  to  any  thing  but  their  own  Reafon.  So  entirely 
has  that  childifh  Sophifm  got  the  better  of  him  :  JVhatfoever  Rea- 
fon might  teach.  It  did  teach.  But  how  has  he  made  out  his  Point  ? 
By  encountering  a  few  weak  Efforts  of  the  Fathers  in  Support  of 
traditional  Knowledge.  He  has  great  reafon  to  boaft  his  Vittory  : 
It  is  like  his  who  triumphed  for  having  tript  up  a  Cripple.  But 
Reverence  for  Age  (hould  dlfpofe  us  to  fpare  the  Fathers,  efpecially 
when  more  able-bodied  Men  ftand  in  our  Way.  Till  he  meet  with 
thcfe,  I  would  recommend  the  following  Fa£l  to  his  Confideration. 
The  more  ancient  Philofophers,  in  the  Delivery  whether  of  their 
moral,  natural,  or  theologic  Principles,  conftantly  recommend  them 
on  this  Footing,  that  they  received  them  from  Tradition  :  One 
Truth  came  from  a  Friejl  of  this  Religion  ;  and  another  from  the 
Jacred  Books  of  that.  Scarce  any  thing  is  ever  reprefented  as  the 
Dedudlion  of  their  own  Reafoning  :  Though  fuch  a  Reprefentatlon 
had  been  attended  with  much  Honour,  and  we  know  they  were  im- 
moderately fond  of  Glory.  Now  if  this  were  the  Cafe,  I  only  a(k, 
WhyJJ.'ould  zve  not  believe  them  f 

II. 

Tlie  Writer's  fecond  Remark  begins  thus :  "  It  has  been  maln- 
*•  taincd  Indeed  by  fome,  that  all  that  the  old  Philofophers  held, 
*'  was  a  natural  Metempfychof.s,  or  a  Tranfitlon  from  one  Body  to 
•'  another,  without  any  moral  Defignatlon  whatfoever.  Rut  furely 
"  this  Conclufion  Is  too  hafty  :  For  when  it  was  fald,  that  the 
"  Souls  of  ill  Men  defcended  into  Ajes  or  Swine,  they  did  not  fup- 
"  pofe  the  Souls  of  good  Men  fo  to  defcend.     The  Souls  of  evil 

"  Men, 


R  E  M  A  R  K  S    O  N    S  Y  K  E  S.  241 

**  Men,  e.g.  of  Murderers,  went  into  the  Bodies  of  Beajls,  thofe  of 
**  Infcivious  Men  into  the  Bodies  of  Swine  or  Goats,  -wot)  KoXunv,  for 
*'  Punijhmetttf  fays  Tiniaus  Locrus.  Was  this  done  for  Punlfliment, 
*'  and  yet  was  no  Regard  paid  to  the  Morals  of  wicked  Men  *  r" 

It  hath  been  maintained  (fays  he)  by  fame,  that  the  old  Philcfophers 
held  only  a  natural  Metempfychofs — but  furely  this  Conclujion  is  too 
hafiy.  Who  it  is  that  has  been  too  hafty,  is  fubmitted  to  the  Judg- 
ment of  the  Public  :  Whether  I,  in  concluding  from  a  hundred  well- 
weighed  Circumflances ;  or  He,  in  cenjuring  from  one  only,  and 
that,  as  we  fhall  fee,  neither  weighed  nor  underflood. 

But  it  is  too  hajly,  for  when  it  was  said,  that  the  Souls  of  ill  Men 
defended  into  Affes  or  Swine,  they  did  not  fuppofe  the  Souls  of  good 
Menfo  to  defcend.  How  are  we  to  underftand  him  ?  If  by  said  be 
only  meant  taught,  then,  from  what  they  faid  of  the  Souls  of  ill 
Men,  nothing  can  be  concluded,  concerning  what  they  supposed  or 
believed  of  the  Souls  of  good  Men  :  Becaufe  it  was  their  Way  to  fay 
one  Thing  zni  fuppofe  another.  But  if  by  said  we  are  to  under- 
hand fippofed  or  believed,  then  I  will  readily  grant,  that,  ij  they 
fuppofed  the  Souls  of  ill  Men  to  defcend,  they  did  not  fuppofe  the  Souls 
of  good  Men  fo  to  defcend.  But  why  this  to  me?  Did/  ever  fay, 
the  old  Philofophersy«/>y(5o/t'^,  that  is,  believed,  that  the  Souls  of  ill 
Men  defended  into  Afes  or  Swine?  He  would  infinuate  I  did;  as 
appears  not  only  from  his  Addrefs,  but  from  his  plain  Allufion  to 
the  following  Words  of  my  Book :  However,  it  is  true,  that  in  his 
Writings  he  [Plato]  inculcates  the  DoBrine  of  a  future  State  of  Reward 
and  Punifment — that  the  Souls  of  ill  Men  defended  into  AJfes  and 
Swine — did  he  hiinfelf  believe  it  f  we  may  be  affured  he  did  not  +,  &c." 
Was  it  from  thefe  Words  he  gathered,  that  1  held,  Plato  fuppojed^ 
what,  I  own,  \\t  inculcated?  Let  him  look  again,  and  I  imagine 
he  will  alter  his  Opinion.  But  he  will  ftill  fay,  though  /  do  not 
hold,  that  the  ancient  Philofophers  {o  fuppofed ;  yet,  what  is  more 
to  the  Purpofe,  an  ancient  Philofopher  does. 

*  Divine  Legation,  vol,  II.  p.  53.  t  lb.  vol.  II.  p.  64. 

Vol.  VI.  1 1  For 


,42  REMARKS     O  ISr    S  Y  K.  E  S. 

For  tluis  he  goes  on  :  The  Souls  of  evil  Men,  c.  g.  of  M.rderers, 
ivetit  into  tbe  Bodies  of  Beiijls,  thofe  of  bfcivious  Men  into  the  Bodies  of 
Swine  and  Goats,  -zsci)  kcXxo-iv,  for  Pttnijhment,  says  tim^eus 
LoCRUS.  Was  this  done  for  Punifl^ment,  and  yet  was  no  Regard  paid 
io  the  Morals  of  'vcickcd  Men  ?  This  is  indeed  amazing  !  The 
Reader  cannot  forger,  that  I  quoted  this  very  Paflage  at  large*, 
as  the  nnoft  incontcftablc  Evidence,  that  the  Pythagoreans  did  not 
believe  one  Word  of  all  they  taught  concerning  the  Souls  of  ill  Men 
defcending  into  the  Bodies  of  Brutes  for  Punf.iment ',  Timseus  Locrus 
prefacing  the  Relation  of  thofe  Tranfitions  in  thefe  very  Words-: 
For  as  "jje  fometimes  cure  the  Body  with  unwholefome  Remedies ^  when 
fuch  as  are  tnofi  ivholefome  have  no  EffeSi,  so  we  restrain  thos3 
Minds  by  false  Relations  which  will  not  be  perfuaded  by  the  true: 
There  is  a  Keceffity  therefore  of  infilling  the  Dread  of  thofe  foreign  Tor- 
ments. As  that  the  Soul  f lifts  and  changes  its  Habitation  ;  that  the 
Ccivard  is  thrufi  ignotninioiifly  into  a  Wamarh  Form,  the  Murderer 
iwprifoned  zvithin  the  Furr  of  a  Savage,  the  Lafcivious  condemned  ta 
animate  a  Boar  or  Sow  ■\,  (Sc.  'rig  yct^  t«  o-ufzcilx  yoffu^Ecri  ts-okbc. 
iyixTOf/.Bg,  ema  [^rj  ttK^  toTc  lyiEivslxTcig'  arcni  rug  -^u^ag  ccTrei^'ycf/.sg 
Y ETAESI  AOrOIS,  BiKX  ju,v)  ayijjoct  aKuQea-f  Kiyotvjo  S'  uvctyKalug  ^ 
Tiju-uoioii  i^iVKi  wf  fzilsvcvoiJ.tvav  tkv  '^v/clv,  tHov  [/Xv  SbiX^v  eg  yvvxiKex  (rxcir 
itu,  Tirod'  vQ^iv  iKOiU^ivct'  Tuv  Se  ^iut(povuv  Ig  ^tjp'lujv  a-Mi^cxja,  ITOTI  KOr- 
AAIIN*  Xapjuv  S",   eg  (rv'2v  ri  kktt^uv  fAo^^ug  j. 

Did  Tima-us  Locrus  thtnfuppofe,  i.e.  believe,  that  the  Souls  of  Hi 
Men  defended  into  Brutes?  Does  he  not  exprefsly  tell  us  he  lup- 
pofed  they  did  not,  but  that  thefe  Fables  were  inculcated  in  order 
to  reftrain  tlie  Populace  from  Vice  ?  To  tamper  then  with  my  own 
Evidence,  and  to  turn  it  againft  me  in  this  Manner,  as  if  nothing 
had  been  faid,  is  fo  new  a  Stroke  in  Controverfy,  that  we  have  yet 
no  Name  for  it ;  but,  on  Occafion,  Ihnll  now  be  able  to  aflign  it  a 
Patronymic. 

However,  to  do  the  Writer  Juftice,  I  muft  be  fo  fair  to  fay,  that 
it  may  admit  of  fome  Doubt,  whether  ever  he  read  this  Pafl'age  in 

•  Divine  Legat.  vol.  II.  p.  53.  |  ibid.  j  pe  Anima  Mundi,  fufa  fine. 

The 


REMARKS    ON    SYKES.  243 

The  Divine  Legation,  or  only  in  the  Letters  to  Serena,  a  Book  that 
undergoes  his  Cenfure  in  the  fame  Place  where  I  am  fo  unliappy 
to  incur  it.  I  am  inclined  to  think  the  latter,  from  this  remark- 
able Circumftance.  The  Author  of  the  Letters  to  Serena  had  tranf- 
lated  Iqcrvuv  rj  KAnPUN  fJLo^tpag,  into  the  Forms  of  Swine  or  Goats  *. 
And  fo  too  has  this  Writer  :  into  the  Bodies  (fays  he)  of  Swine  or 
Goats  +,  which  is  fo  Angular  an  Interpretation,  that,  notwith- 
flanding  the  Proverb,  that  good  Wits  jump,  I  can  hardly  think  them 
to  be  both  original.  But  perhaps  that  excellent  Correfpondeht  of 
Serena's  had  here  a  mind  to  fliew  his  Learning  j  and  knowing,  that 
the  Tyrrhenians,  a  Greek  Colony  in  Italy,  ufed  xRTrp©^  for  a  G^at,  he 
would  conclude,  by  Analogy,  that  the  Locrians,  another  Greek 
Colony  in  Italy,  did  the  fame.  Again,  Timceus  Locrus  fays,  J;  -S-ij- 
^luv  c-u^cila;  Toland,  into  Beef  s  of  Prey.  This  Writer,  into  the  Bo- 
dies of  Beajis.  Here,  where  Toland  is  right,  he  leaves  him ;  but 
flicks  charitably  by  him  while  he  continues  wrong.  For  '^vi^mv  fig- 
iiifies  Beafs  of  Prey :  And  that  precife  Idea  is  required  to  complete 
the  Senfe ;  the  Habitation  of  the  Murderer  being  here  fpokeu  of. 
Again,  TimcEUS  fays,  e^or*  w\a,<Ti'j,  which  Toland  faithfully  renders 
for  a  Punijhment ;  and  which  this  Writer  particularly  infifls  on,  as 
the  very  Cream  of  his  Argument:  Murderers  (fiys  he)  went  into 
the  Bodies  of  Beqfts,  thofe  of  lajcivious  Men  into  the  Bodies  of  Sitine 
or  Goats,  -zsofi  koXxo-iv,  for  Punishment,  /<7>'j  Timaeus  Locrus. 
Was  this  done  for  Pimifment,  and  yet,  &c.  But  here  I  muft  retradl 
my  Sufpicion  ;  for  from  this  la  ft  In  (lance  it  would  feem,  that  he 
had  read  and  compared  my  Tranflation,  in  whi^h  the  Eng/fj  of 
thofe  formidable  Words,  "sroTi  x.oKoc(nv,  is  not  literally  to  be  found. 
And  now  the  Secret  is  out.  He  feems  to  fuppofel  omitted  tiiem, 
as  confcious  of  their  containing  fome  ftrange  Matter  againft  my  gene- 
ral Opinion.  But  in  truth,  it  was  partly,  becaufe  they  were  redun- 
dant j  Timaus  reprefenting  the  whole  Affair  under  the  general  Idea 
of  a  Punifmient ;  and  partly,  becaufe  the  Senfe  of  ototi  nc'Kua-tv  was 
comprifed  in  the  Word  imprifoned ,  which  I  ufed  in  the  very  Cafe  to 

*   Letters  to  Serena,  p.  58.  f  P.  40^  of  his  Connexions,  &c. 

I  i  2  wluch 


,44  REMARKS    ON    S  Y  K  E  S. 

which  thofc  Words  are  npplicd.     As  to  the  Klea  Itfelf,  that  was  fo  far 

from  hurling  my  Argum.i.t,  thnt  it  could  not  do  without  it. 

He  goes  on  :—rh<y  [the  Philoibphers]  really  conceived  Putujhments 
and  Rezfards  of  evil  or  good  Jahns  in  Men  ;  and  Jome  imagined  a 
Puni/lmettt  by  the  means  of  Tranfmigration,  others  imagined  a  Punijli- 
ment  injlitlai  in  Hades,  others  by  immediate  Acts  of  Provi- 
dence ;  and  all  fuppofed  Rewards  or  Piim/hments,  notwithjianding 
tbey  might  treat  as  Fables  the  Stories  r/Cocytus  and  Acheron  *.  He 
fticks  to  his  Point,  we  fee;  and  will  ftlll  have  it,  that  they  believed 
a//.'//,  though  they  treated  the  Stories  oi  Cocyius  zv\A  Acheron  as 
Fables,  which  (to  tell  him  my  Mind  once  for  all)  is  juft  as  if  one 
ihould  fay,  fome  among  us  believe  theMiferies  of  the  King's-Bench- 
Prifon,  and  yet  treat  the  Stories  of  Jailors,  Turnkeys,  Bailiffs,  and 
Attorneys,  as  mere  Fables.  But  what  have  immediate  ASls  of  Provi- 
dence to  do  in  this  Period  ?  Did  not  1  endeavour  to  prove,  that  all 
the  Theiftical  Philofophers  believed  a  Providence  in  this  Life  ? 
Thefe  Words  therefore,  as  they  are  found  in  a  Paragraph  that  re- 
lates folely  to  mypecullar  Opinion,  1  can  confider  in  no  other  Light 
than  as  a  falfe  Infinuation  ad  invidiam. 

1  have  now  attended  this  Writer  quite  through  his  little  Excur- 
fion.  Let  us  fee  how  he  returns  to  himfelf ;  However,  ivhat  1 
contend  for,  is,  that  the  Heathen  held  a  moral  [a  future]  State  of 
Rewards  and  Punijhments,  according  to  Good  and  Evil  done  here  ^. 
It  is  worthy  his  Contention  ;  and  I  fhould  be  ready  to  be  his  Second 
in  it.  But  why  then  fhould  he  go  out  of  his  Way,  and  contend  for 
another  Thing  that  will  do  neither  himfelf  nor  his  Caufe  any  Cre- 
dit ?  I  mean  him  Honour,  when  I  fay  his  Caufe :  For  1  really 
believe  it  to  be  the  Caufe  of  Chriftlanity.  Now,  I  conceive  this 
not  at  all  advanced  by  endeavouring  to  (hew  that  the  facred  Writers 
had  but  fmall  reafon  for  their  harfh  Cenfure  of  the  Greek  Philofo- 
phy  \  ;  as  the  contending  for  its  Orthodoxy  in  this  Point  effedively 
docs.     But  1  will  fuppofe  the  fiicred  Writers  have  been  mlfunder- 

•*  Connexions,  &c.  p.  402.  f  lb.  X  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  11.  p.  134. 

flood 


REMARKS    ON^    SYKES.  24; 

flood.  And  perhaps  this  may  be  no  great  Reflexion  upon  any  Party ; 
if  we  confider,  that  the  yjnfenijis,  fcarce  inferior  to  any  in  their 
Talents  of  Reafoning  and  Criticifm,  have  flrangcly  miflakeu  thofe 
Cenfures,  while  they  underftood  them  to  be  dircded  agalnft  human 
Science  in  general.  I  fuppofed  therefore,  that,  to  (hew  the  facred 
Writers  only  cenfured  the  Greek  Philofophy,  and  that  it  deferved 
their  Cenfu re,  was  not  one  of  the  lead  Services  one  might  render 
to  our  holy  Religion,  But  the  Occafion  now  feems  to  be  more 
urgent.  The  Pretenfions  of  thefe  Philofophers  have  been  of  late 
highly  advanced.  The  Author  of  the  Book,  intituled,  Future  Re^ 
ivards  and  Puni/l:ments  believed  by  the  ^ricientSy  hath,  we  fee,  forced 
the  infpired  Te.icliers  of  Mankind  to  give  them  the  right  hand  of 
Fellowfhip.  I  had  expofed  t\\t\r prophane  and  vain  Babblings  iu  one 
capital  Inftance,  becaufe  it  came  dire(5bly  into  ray  particular  Defign ; 
as  well  for  that  I  thought  it  ufeful  to  Revelation  in  general.  I  did 
not  then  indeed  imagine  the  Neceflity  fo  preffing.  I  may  hereafter 
perhaps  find  Occafion  to  examine  thefe  fpurious  Rivals  of  the  Apof- 
tolic  Fundion  on  every  Head  of  Morality  and  Religion,  in  the  man- 
ner I  have  already  done  on  one;  and  fully  vindicate  the  Majefty  of 
Sacred  Writ  in  the  juft  Sentence  it  hath  paffed  upon  them. 


A  LET- 


[   h6   3 


A 

LETTER 

To  the  Right  Reverend 

Dr.  Richard  Smallbrook, 

Lord  Bifliop  of  Lichfield  and  Coventry. 


1\I  Y  Lord, 

THIS  Trouble  is  occafioned  by  a  Paflage  hi  your  Lordfliip's 
late  printed  Charge  *  to  your  Clergy,  in  which  you  have 
been  pleafed  to  cenfure  me  by  Name  with  fome  Franknefs,  and,  I 
am  forry  to  fay,  with  equal  Injuftice. 

The  Regard  due  to  your  Lordfhip's  Order,  efpecially  while  in 
Difcharge  of  your  Fundiou,  would  have  certainly  retrained  me 
from  complaining  of  ought  that  was  a  mere  Declaration  of  your 
Lordfliip's  Diflike  of  my  Writings.  It  is  your  Lordlhip's  Right  and 
Duty  to  warn  your  Clergy  againft  all  ill  Books  :  And  your  Lord- 
ihip  is,  in  that  Place  and  on  that  Occafion,  an  authorized  Denouncer 
of  what  are  fo.  Had  your  Lordfhip  therefore  only  faid,  that  The 
Divine  Legation  was  a  very  bad  Book,  I  had  not  attempted,  by  any 
Addrefs  of  this  Nature,  todiflurbyou  in  the  quiet  Poffeffion  of  your 

*  Printed  in   1741,  by  J,  and  P.  Knaptcn,  Odavo. 

Opinion. 


LETTER  TO  BP.  SMALLBROOK.       -247 

Opinion.  But  when  a  Reafon  added  to  tliat  Declaration  turns  your 
vague  Cenfure  \nto  7i  formal  AcciifiUion^  then,  my  Lord,  it  becomes 
equally  my  Righi  and  Duty  to  defend  my  Charadler,  if  I  find  it 
iniftaken. 

To  put  the  Public  therefore  (which  your  Lordfhip  has  forced  m« 
to  appeal  to)  in  Pofleflion  of  the  Fad,  it  will  be  neceffary  to  go  fo 
far  back  as  to  tell  them  what  it  is  your  Lordfliip  fays  you  propofe 
to  make  the  Subjed  of  your  Charge,  It  is  (in  your  own  Words)  to 
lay  before  your  Clergy  fome  ReafonSy  drawn  from  the  Chrifllan  R-evela- 
ilon  it/elf  ivhich  evince  the  Pretenjions  of  Morality  antecedently  to  divine 
Revelation,  to  be  carried  much  too  high,  and  vindicate  the  Chrifiian 
Faith,  as  well  as  Morality,  froM  thafe  invidious  Insinuations  that 
have  been  been  cast  itponihem  ^y  several  Late  Writers,  who 
will occafonally  be  animadverted  upon  in  thefollonsing  Difcourfe  *.. 

Your  Lordfhip  having  gone  through  your  Reafons,  comes,  in 
Page  24,  to  draw  your  Inferences  from  them.  The  fecond  of 
which,  you  tell  us,  is,  "  That  though  Chrlftian  Morality  is  muck 
*'  fuperior  to  that  of  all  other  Religions,  yet  it  does  not  of  itfelf. 
*'  (that  is  abftradedly  from  the  Fatts  recorded  in  the  Gofpel,.  with 
*'  which  it  is  incorporated)  evince  the  Truth,  though  it.  does  m.oft 
*'  clearly  the  Excellency  of  the  C/6/-////W;  Religion.  It  is  certain  (fays- 
"your  Lordfliip)  that  the  Reafonablenefs  and  Sanftity  of  the  moral 
*'  Precepts  of  the  Gofpel  give  gretit  j^dvantages  to  Chriftianity,  as 
"  compared  with  any  other, Religion  ancient  or  modern.  And  this 
*'  of  itfelf  is  fufficient  to  give  a  well-difpofed  Mind  very  favourable 
*'  Thoughts  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  and  to  induce  it  to  make 
*'  farther  Enquiries  into  the  Truth  of  thofe  FaJis  which  eflablilh 
"  its  Divine  Authority.  And  this  is  as  far  as  the  Argument  needs 
*<  to  be  pulhed  ;  aiid.in  fa£l  it  is  as  far  as  one  of  the  befi:  modern 
"  Apologias  for  the  Truth  of  Chriftianity,  the  mofl  learned . 
«'  Grotius,  in  Concurrence,  with  tj-.e  principal  Apologilk  amongst 
"  the  Ancients,  and  more  efj^-ecially  the  famous  Origen,  though! 
*'  fit  to  urge  it.     It  is  clear  that  they  thouglit  themlclvcs  obliged: 

*  Page  2. 

"only. 


,^^  LETTER  TO  BP.  SMALLBROOK. 

«•  only  to  fliew,  that  the  Morality  of  the  Go/pel  does  vaftly  excel 
««  that  of  all  other  Religious  and  Moral  Inftitutions,  and  is  mofl 
*'  worthy  of  God  in  all  refpefts.  But  neither  they  nor  any  other 
"  thoughtful  Perfoiis,  that  have  formerly  engaged  on  this  Subjeft 
»'  (as  far  as  1  can  recolle<fl)  have  thought  it  reafonable  to  lay  fo 
"  great  a  Strefs  on  the  Excellency  of  the  Morals  of  the  Gofpel,  con- 
"  fiderod  diftinaiy  from  ihcFaBs  of  the  Gofpel,  and  in  their  own 
•'  Nature  iblely,  as  neceflarily  to  infer  from  thence  tlie  Certainty 
*'  of  the  Chriftian  Revelation.  And  much  lefs  have  they  affertcd, 
*'  as  has  beeu  done  by  fome  late  Writers,  that  the  Morality  of 
*'  the  Gofpel,  which  they  call  t\\Q  internal  Evidence  of  it  (though 
*'  indeed  it  has  not  the  Nature  of  TLvidence  properly  fo  called),  is 
*«  the  ftrongeft  Evidence  of  the  Truth  of  Chrirtianity,  and  is  highly 
*'  fuperior  to  all  its  external  Evidence,  that  is,  the  Evidence  which 
*'  arifes  from  the  Fadls  recorded  in  the  Gofpel,  and  attended  with 
*'  other  Atteftations  of  ancient  Writers,  which  fupport  its  Divine 
"  Authority*.'*  This  is  all  from  your  Lordfliip ;  where  at  the 
^vord  Writers  we  find  a  Mark  of  Reference  to  the  following 
Note — See  iVfr.  Arfcot's  Confiderations  on  theChriJlian  Religion,  p.io. 
51.  59,  60,  &:c.  Part  II.  p.  63.  Part  III.  and  elfcwhere.  See 
TOO  Mr.  Warburton's  divine  Legation  of  Moses,  &c.  p.  i, 

2,  3'  4>  5  +• 

So  that  here,  my  Lord,  1  find  this  Propofition  affirmed.  That 
Mr.  JVarburton,  in  his  Divine  Legation  of  Mo(ts,  8cc.  p.  i,  2,  3, 
4,  5,  has  averted  That  the  Morality  of  the  Gospel,  which 
HE  calls  the  internal  Evidence  of  it,  is  the  strongest 
Evidence  of  the  Truth  of  Christianity,  and  is  highly  su- 
perior TO  ALL  ITS  external  EVIDENCE. 

This,  my  Lord,  is  your  Accufation  ;  a  very  capital  one  it  is; 
and  fuch  as,  if  true,  would  prove  me  devoid  of  common  Senfe,  as 
well  as  in  all  other  refpeds  unworthy  the  Charafter  I  bear  of  a 
Chriftian,  a  Clergyman,  or  a  Defender  of  Revelation.     I  am  there- 

*  i'ages^,  37,  38.  f  Page  38. 

fore 


LETTER  TO  BP.  SMALLBROOK.         249 

fore  neceflitated  to  call  upon  your  Lordfliip,  in  this  public  Manner, 
either  to  make  it  good,  or  to  give  me  Reparation.  Your  LordHiip 
confines  the  Proof  of  your  Accufation  to  the  firfl:,  fecond,  third, 
fourth,  and  fifth  Pages  of  the  Flrft  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legatiott. 
But  as  I  am  not  difpofed  to  chicane  in  fo  ferious  a  Matter,  I  hereby 
prcmlfe,  that  if  either  in  thofe  Pages,  or  in  any  other  Pages  of  that 
Work,  or  in  any  thing  I  have  ever  written,  preached,  cr  fald,  vour 
Lordfhlp  produces  the  Propofitlon  In  quefllon  as  held  and  maintained 
by  ine,  either  in  exprefs  Terms,  or  deduclble  by  fair  and  logical 
Confequence,  I  promife,  I  fay,  to  fubmlt  to  any  Cenfureyour  Lord- 
fliip's  felf  (hall  think  fit  to  inflid.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  you  can 
produce  no  fuch  Propofitlon,  I  fliall  then  expedt  fo  much  from  your 
Lord(hip's  Juftlce  as  to  retradl  your  Accufation  in  the  fame  public 
Manner  you  have  been  pleafed  to  advance  it. 


I  am,  My  Lord, 
Tour  Lordship's 

Nov.  17,   1741. 

Mojl  Obedient  Servant^ 


W.  Warburton. 


Vol.  VI.  Kk  REMARKS 


REMARKS 

ON     SEVERAL 

OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS: 

In    answer    to 

The  Rev.  Dr.  MIDDLETON,  Dr.  POCOCKE, 
The  MASTER  of  the  Charter  House, 
Dr.    RICHARD     GREY,    and   others. 

Serving  to  explain  and  juftify  clivers  Passages,   in  the 

DIVINE       LEGATION, 

Objected  to  by  tliofe  Learned  Writers. 

TO    WHICH    IS    ADDED, 

A  GENERAL  REVIEW  of  the  Argument  of  The  Divine  Legation, 
as  far  as  is  yet  advanced  :  wherein  is  confidered  the  Relation  the 
feveral  Farts  bear  to  each  other,  and  to  the  Whole. 

TOGETHER     WITH 

An       appendix, 

In  anfwer  to  a  late  Pamphlet  intituled, 

An  Examination  of  Mr.  W 's  Second  Propojiiion, 


K  k  2 


Quid  immerentes  hofpites  vexas,  Canis, 

Ignavus  aclverfum  Lupos  ? 
Nam,  quails  aut  Moloffus,  aut  fulvus  Lacon, 

Amiga  vis  Pastoribus, 
Agam  per  altas  aure  fublata  nives, 

Qiideciinque  praecedet  Fera. 
Til  quuRi  timenda  voce  complefti  Nemus, 

Pi-ojeCliim  odoraris  Cibum.  Hor, 


[    255,    1 


REPACK 


IN  the  Prefatory  Difcourfe  to  the  Firil:  Volume  of  the  D.  L. 
I  fpoke  pretty  largely  of  the  Ufe  of  RicTtcule,  m  Religious  Sub- 
jeds  ;  as  the  Jhtife  of  it  is  amongft  the  fafliionable  Arts  of  Free- 
thinking:  For  which  I  have  been  juft  now  called  to  Account, 
without  any  Ceremony,  by  the  Namelefs  Author  of  a  Poem  intituled, 
The  PleaJ'ures  of  Imagination.  For  'tis  ray  Fortune  to  be  ftill  con- 
cerned with  thofe  who  either  do  go  maiked,  or  thofe  who  Jljould. 
I  am  a  plain  Man,  and  on  my  firft  Appearance  in  this  Way,  I  told 
my  Name  and  who  1  belonged  to.  After  this,  if  Men  will  rudely 
come  upon  me  in  Difguife,  they  can  have  no  Reafon  to  complain, 
that  (in  my  Ignorance  of  their  Chara£l:ers)  I  treat  them  all  alik-s 
upon  the  fame  free  Footing  they  have  put  themfelves., 

This  Gentleman,  a  Follower  of  Ld.  S.  and,  as  it  fliould  feem,. 
one  of  thofe  to  whom  that  Preface  was  addreffed ;  Certainly,  ono 
of  thofe  to  whom  I  applied  the  Words  of  TuUy,  non  decet,  nan 
datum  ejl ;  who  afFe£t  Wit  and  Raillery  on  Subjeds  not  meet,  and 
with  Talents  unequal  ;  this  Gentleman,  I  fay,  in  the  105th  and 
1 06th  Pages  of  his  Poem,  animadverts  upon  me  in  the  following 
Manner  : 

Since  it  is  (fays  he)  beyond  all  ContradiBion  evident,  that  tve  have 
a  natural  Senfe  or  Feeling  of  the  ridiculous,  andfncefogoodaReafofi, 
may  be  afigned  to  jujlify  the  Supreme  Being  for  befiowing  it ;  one  cannot 

ivith'iui. 


254  PREFACE    TO    REMARKS 

tviibcut  AlloiiinimciU  reflect  on  the  ConduSl  of  thofe  Men  who  ma- 
gi ne  it  for  the  Service  of  true  Religion  to  vilify  and  blachn  it  -without 
DifinSlion,  and  endeavour  to  perfuade  us  that  it  is  never  applied  but  in 
a  badCaufe.  The  Reafon  here  given,  to  fhew,  that  Ridicule  and 
Bufoonry  may  be  properly  employed  on  ferious  and  even  facred 
Subjc-as,  is  admirable  :  it  is,  becaufe  we  have  a  natural  Senfe  or 
Feeling  of  the  ridiculous,  and  becaufe  no  Senfation  was  given  us  in 
i-ain  ;  which  would  ferve  juft  as  well  to  excufe  Adultery  or  Incefi. 
For  have  we  not  as  natural  a  Senfe  or  Feeling  of  the  Voluptuous  ? 
And  was  it  not  given  for  as  good  Purpofes  ?  .  But  he  will  fay,  it 
has  its  proper  Objcfts.  And  does  he  think,  I  will  not  fay  the  fame 
oi  K\%  Senfe  of  Ridicule  ?  For  he  flretch'd  a  Point,  when  he  told 
the  Reader  I  viliji-ed  and  blacken  d  it  -without  DiJlinBion.  The  Thing 
I  there  oppofed,  was  only,  an  extravagant  Difpoftion  to  unfeafonable 
Mirth  *.  The  abufive  Way  of  Wit  and  Raillery  on  ferious  Suhjedlt  f. 
With  as  little  Truth  could  he  fny,  that  /  endeavoured  to  perfuade 
the  Public  that  it  is  never  applied  but  in  a  bad  Caufe :  For,  in  that 
very  Place,  I  apologized  for  an  eminent  Writer  who  had  applied  it 
to  a  good  one  ;[. 

But,  in  the  next  Words,  if  he  means  by,  is  ?20t,  ought  not  to 
be,  he  gives  me  up  all  I  want.  Ridicule  (lays  he)  is  not  concerned 
•with  mere  fpeculative  truth  or  Falfood.  Certainly.  And,  for  that 
very  Reafon  I  would  exclude  it  from  thofe  Subjefts.  What  need  ? 
He  will  fay.  For  when  was  it  fo  employed  ?  Hold  a  little.  Was 
it  not  concerned  with  mere  fpeculative  Truths  when  his  Mafter  ridi- 
culed the  Subjecl  o£Mv.  Locke's  EJfay  of  Human  Vnderfanding^  in  the 
Manner  mentioned  in  my  Preface  §  ?  Was  it  not  fo  concerned  too, 
when  the  famp  Noble  Perfon  ridiculed  Revelation,  in  the  merry 
Story  of  the  travelling  Gentlemen,  who  put  a  wrong  Bias  on  their 
Reafon  in  order  to  believe  right  ||  ? Unlefs,  by   mere  fpeculative 

*  Div.  Leg,  ed.  410.  Ded.  p.  x.  f  Ibid,  p.  xii.  %  Ibid,  p,  vii.  &  feq. 

§   Dedication  to  the   ift  vol.  D.  L.  p.  xxii.  Note  (|i}. 
n  Cbar.  II.  vol.  m.  Mifc,  a,  c,  3.  p.  99. 

T:ruths, 


ON  OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.        2^5 

Truthsy  he  means.  Truths  of  tio  Ufe :  And  for  all  fuch,  he  has  my 
free  Leave  to  treat  them  as  he  plcafes.  He  has  flievvn,  by  his 
Poem,  they  are  no  improper  Subjedl  for  his  Talents. 

He  goes  on,  //  is  not  in  ahJlraSl  Propojitions  or  Theorems,  but  iti 
ji£lions  and  Pajfions,  Good  and  Evil,  Beauty  and  Deformity,  that 
•we  fnd  Materials  for  it;  and  all  thefe  Terms  are  relative,  implying 
JlpprolhUion  or  Blame.  The  Reafon  here  given,  wliy,  not  abjlratt 
Propofitions,  &c.  but  ASiions  and  PaJJions,  &c.  are  the  Subject  of  ri- 
dicule, is,  becaufe  thefe  latter  are  relative  Terms  implying  Approbation 
and  Blame.  But  are  not  the  former  as  much  relative  Terms,  imply-' 
ing  AJjent  and  Denial  ?  And  does  not  an  abfurd  Propofition  as  fre- 
quently afford  Materials  for  Ridicule  as  an  abfurd  A£lion  ?  Let  the 
Reader  determine  by  what  he  finds  before  him.  To  afk  then,  (fays 
he)  whether  Ridicule  be  a  Teji  of  Truth,  is,  in  other  Words,  to  afk 
whether  that  which  is  ridiculous  can  be  morally  true  ;  can  be  juji 
and  becoming  ;  or  whether  that  which  is  juf  and  becotning  can  be  ridi- 
culous. A  ^ejlion  that  does  not  deferve  a  ferious  Anfwer.  Why 
then  did  he  put  it  ?  For  it  is  of  nobody's  afking  but  his  own^ 
However  in  Civility  to  his  Mafler,  or  rather  indeed  to  his  Matter's 
Matters,  the  Ancient  Sophifs,  who,  we  are  told  *  in  the  CharaC' 
terijiics,  faid  fomething  very  like  it,  I  fhall  fliew  it  deferves  a  very 
ferious  Anfwer.  For  how,  I  pray,  comes  it  to  pafs,^that  to  aik 
whether  Ridicule  be  a  Tfi  of  Truth,  is  the  fame  Thing  as  to  afk  whe- 
ther that  tvhich  is  ridiculous  can  be  morally  true?  As  if,  whatever 
Ridicide  was  applied  to,  as  a  Tef,  mutt  needs  be  ridiculous.  Might 
not  one  a(k,  Whether  the  Copcl\  be  a  Tef  of  Gold,  without  incurring 
the  Abfurdity  of  quettioning  whether  the  Matter  of  the  Copelwas  ?iot 
fandard  Gold?     What  was  the   Man  dreaming  of?     That  a  2"^ 

*  'Twas  the  Saying  of  an  Jncieut  Sage,  that  HuiMtir  was  the  only  7cf.  of  RUicuk.  Vol.  I. 
p.  74. 

-f-  I  chufe  this  Inftance  of  the  Refiner's  Copel,  becaufe  the  EngUJh  for  it,  which  i* 
Italian,  is  TeJ  ;  from  whence  the  latter  Word  was  metaphorically  ufed  to  fignify  all 
Kinds  oi/ure  Trial.  This  was  proper  to  obfcrve,  as  our  Poet  feems  not  to  know  the 
Meaning  of  the  Word. 


1^6  P  R  K  l-  A  C  E  TO  REMARKS 
cj  Truth,  am!  a  D'te^ion  ofFaJpood,  were  one  and  the  fame  Thing  ? 
or  t!iat  it  was  the  Praclicc  to  bring  nothing  to  the  Tejl  but  what  was 
known,  beforehand,  whether  it  was  true  ot  falfe?  His  Mafter 
Teems  much  better  verfed  in  the  Ufe  of  Things.  He  fays  *,  Now, 
v.'hat  Rule  or  Mectfure  is  there  in  the  World,  except  in  confidering  the 
real  Temper  cf  Things,  to  find  ivbich  are  truly  feriotis,  and  which  ridi- 
culous ?     Jnd  hoiv  can  this  be  done,  unlefs  by  applying  the  Ridicule  to 

SEE  WHETHEK  IT  ^\  ILL  BEAR  ? 

But  it  the  Reader  be  curious  to  fee  to  the  Bottom  of  this  Affair, 

wc  muft  go  a  little  deeper.     Lord  S ,  we  find,  was  willing  to 

know,  as  every  honeft  Man  would,  whether  thofe  things,  which 
had  the  Apperance  of  Serioufnefs  and  San£tity,  were  indeed  what 
tiiey  appeared.  The  plain  way  of  conning  to  this  Knowledge  had 
been  hitherto  by  the  Teft  of  Reafon.  But  this  was  too  long  and  too 
flow  a  Progrels  for  fo  fublime  a  Genius.  He  would  go  a  fhorter 
and  a  quicker  Wav  to  work,  and  do  the  Eufinefs  by  Ridicule,  given 
as,  as  his  Difciple  tells  us,  for  this  very  End,  to  aid  the  tardy  Steps 
ijReafon.  This  therefore  the  Noble  Author  would  needs  apply,  to 
fee  whether  thefe  Appearances  would  bear  the  Touch.  Now  it  was  this 
ingenious  Expedient,  which  I  thought  I  had  Caufe  to  objedl  to. 
For  when  you  have  applied  this  Touch,  and  that,  to  which  it  is 
applied,  is  found  to  bear  it,  what  Reparation  will  you  make  to 
Truth,  for  the  ridiculous  Light  in  which  you  have  placed  her, 
in  order  only,  as  you  pretend,  to  judge  right  of  her  ?  Oh, 
for  that,  fays  his  Lordfliip,  fhe  has  the  Amends  in  her  own 
Hands:  Let  her  railley  again  ;  ^or  why  Jhould  fair  Hone/Iy  be  de- 
nied the  Ufe  of  this  Weapon  j-?  To  this  fo  wanton  a  Liberty  with 
facred  Truth,  I  thought  I  had  many  good  Reafons  to  oppofe  ;  and 
fo,  it  feems,  thought  our  Poet  likewife :  And  therefore  he  endea- 
vours to  excufe  his  Mafter,  by  putting  another  Senfe  on  the  Appli- 
cation of  Ridicule  as  a  Tef,  which  fuppofes  the  Truth  or  FalOiood 
of  the  Thing  tried,  to  be  already  known.     But  the  fhift  is  unlucky  ; 

♦  Char.  Vol.  I.  p.  12.  t  Ibid.  p.  128. 

for 


ON  OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.        257 

for  while  it  covers  his  Maftcr,  it  expofes  himfelf.  For  now  it  may 
be  alked,  what  need  of  Ridicule  at  all,  after  the  Truth  is  knoivti ; 
iiuce  you  make  its  fole  Ufe  to  confifl:  in  the  Dijcovery  of  the  true 
State  of  Things  ? 

But  the  odd  Fortune  of  our  Poct'3  Pen  makes  the  plcafant 
Part  of  the  Story.  Here,  we  fee,  where  he  aims  to  make  an 
abfurd  Propofition,  for  the  Ufe  of  others,  it  proves  a  reafonable 
one  :  'Tis  odds  but  we  find  him,  before  we  have  done,  trying 
to  make  a  reafonable  one,  for  his  own  Ufe,  that  turns  out  at  laft 
an  Abfurdity. 

But  let  us  come  to  the  Fhilofophy  of  his  Criticlfm  :  For  it  is  mojl 
evident^  that  as  in  a  metaphyfical  Propojilion  offered  to  the  Under- 
handing  for  its  Affenty  the  Faculty  ofReafofi  examines  the  Terms  of  the 
Propofition  ;  and  finding  one  Idea,  which  ivas  fuppofed  equal  to  another, 
to  be  in  Faci  tmequal,  ofConfequence  rejeFls  the  Propcfition  as  a  Falf- 
hood:  So  in  ObjeSls  offered  to  the  Mind  for  its  Ejiecm  or  Aptlaufe, 
the  Faculty  of  Ridicule  feeling  an  Incorigruity  in  the  Claim^  urges  the 
Mind  to  rejeSl  it  with  Laughter  and  Contempt,  And  now,  how  does 
this  fublime  Account,  of  Reafon  and  Ridicule,  prove  the  foregoing 
Propofition  to  be  abfurd  ?  Juft  as  much,  I  fuppofe,  as  the  PIcight 
of  St.  Pauh  proves  Grantham  Steeple  to  fland  awry.  I,  for  my 
Part,  can  colle6t  nothing  from  itj  unlefs  it  be  that  the  Poet  thought 
metaphyfical  Propofitions  were  the  only  proper  ObjeSs  of  the  Undcr- 
Jianding's  Affent,  and  the  Reafotis  Examination. 

However,  if  it  cannot />row  what  precedes,  he  will  try  to  make 
it  itfer  what  follows  :  Whe?i  Therefore  (fays  he)  ive  obferve  fuch 
a  Claim  obtruded  upon  Manliind,  and  the  inconfifient  C'lrcumfiances 
carefully  concealed  from  the  Eye  of  the  Public,  it  is  our  Bufimfs,  if 
the  Matter  be  of  Importance  to  Society,  to  drag  out  thofe  latent  Circum- 
fiances,  and,  by  Jetting  them  full  in  Vieu\  convince  the  World  hoiv  ri- 
diculous the  Claim  is  ;  and  thus  a  double  Advantage  is  gained ;  for  ive 
both  deieB  the  moral  Falffood  fooner  than  in  the  Way  of  fpeculative 
Enquiry,  and  imprefs  the  Minds  of  Men  with  afronger  Scnfe  of  the 
Vanity  and  Error  of  its  Authors.     And  this,  and  no  more,  is  meant  by 

Vol.  VI,  L  1  the 


258  PREFACE    TO     REMARKS 

the  Applkation  of  Ridicule.  A  little  more^  if  we  may  believe  hia 
Mafter  :  who  fays,  it  is  not  only  to  dete£t  Error,  but  to  try  Truth, 
that  is,  in  his  own  Expreflion,  to  fee  whether  it  will  bear.  But 
why  all  this  a-do  ;  for  now,  we  fee,  nobody  miftook  what  was 
tneant  by  the  Application  of  Ridicule^  but  himfelf — As  to  what  he 
faid  before,  that  when  Objects  are  offered  to  the  Mind  for  its  Efleem 
and  Apptaufe,  the  Faculty  of  Rtdlcuh\  feeling  an  Incongruity  In  the 
Claim,  urges  the  Mind  to  rejeSi  it  with  Laughter  and  Contempt ;  it  is 
fo  exprcfled,  as  if  he  intended  it  not  for  the  Defcription  of  the 
Iff,  but  the  Efence  of  Ridicule.  Whereas  the  Dealers  in  this 
Trafh  frequently  urge  the  Mind  to  rejeSi  many  things  with  Laughter 
and  Contempt,  without  feeling  any  other  Incongruity^  than  in  their 
own  Pretenfions  to  Truth  and  Honefty.  And  this  our  Poet  very 
well  knows. 

For  now  he  comes  to  the  Point.  But  It  Is  fald  the  Pradllce  Is 
dangerous,  and  may  be  inconffent  -with  the  Regard  we  owe  to  Obje£ls 
of  real  Dignity  and  Excellence.  I  anfwer,  the  Pra^lce,  fairly 
MANAGED,  Can  never  be  dangerous.  An  Anfiver  which  lias  only 
taught  me  to  reply,  that  the  Ufe  of  Stilletto*s  and  Poifons,  fairly 
managed,  can  never  be  dangerous.  And  yet  all  wife  States,  for 
the  Security  of  its  Members,  when  any  of  them  have  fhewn  a- 
violent  Propenfity  to  thefe  things,  have  ever  forbidden  their  promif- 
cuous  Ufe  and  Sale. 

However,  he  allows  at  length,  that  Men  may  be  dlponefl  In  ob- 
truding Clrcun fiances  foreign  to  the  OhjeSi  ;  and  ivc  may  be  inadver- 
tent In  allowing  thofe  Clrcumflances  to  impofe  upon  us ;  but but 

what?  Why  the  Sense  of  Ridicule  always  judges  right. 
And,  he  had  told  us  before,  that  this  is  a  natural  Senfe^  and  be- 
powcd  upon  us  by  the  Supreme  Being,  to  aid  our  tardy  Steps  in  Purfult 
of  Reafon.  Why,  as  he  fays,  who  can  withftand  this?  Nothing 
can  be  clearer  !  Writers  may  be  dlOioneft ;  Readers  may  be  Im- 
pofed  on  ;  the  Public  may  be  mlfled  ;  and  Men  may  judge  wrong. 
But  what  then,  tlic  Scnfe  of  Ridicule  always  judges  right.  And 
while  we  can  fupport  our  Platonic  Republic  of  Ideas,  what  fignl- 

fies 


ON  OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.       259 

fies  what  becomes  of  the  Faces  Rotfiuli,  the  A^lions  of  the  People  ? 
And  fo  agaui  it  is,  we  fee,  in  the  Ufe  of  Poifons :  Though  Men 
may  be  dtflionejl  in  obtruding  thevi,  and  ive  may  be  inadvertent  enough 
to  fuffer  them  to  itnpofe  upon  us  ;  yet  what  then  ?  The  Efficacy  of 
Poifon  is  without  Malice ;  and  does  but  do  its  kind  ;  is  a  natural 
Power,  and  beftowed  upon  us  by  the  Supreme  Being,  to  aid  our  tardy 
Steps  in  Purfuit  of  Vermin. — In  Truth,  one  would  imagine,  by 
fo  extraordinary  an  Argument,  that  the  Queftion  was  not,  of  the 
Injury  to  Society  by  the  Abufe  of  Ridicule,  but  of  the  Injury  to  Ri- 
dicule itfelf. 

But  let  us  hear  him  out:  The  Socrates  o/"Ari{lophanes  is  as  truly 
ridiculous  a  CharaSler  as  ever  was  drawn.  'True  ;  but  it  is  not  the 
CharaSier  0/"  Socrates,  the  divine  Moral'f,  and  Father  of  ancient  IVif- 
dom.  Indeed  ! — But  then,  if,  like  the  true  Srfia,  in  the  other  Co- 
medy, he  muft  bear  the  Blows  of  his  fiditious  Brother,  what  figni- 
fies  it  to  injured  Virtue,  to  tell  us,  that  he  did  not  deferve  them  ? 

IVh^i  then?  (fays  he)  did  the  Ridicule  of  the  Poet  hinder  the  Phi- 
Icfipher  from  dete3ing  and  df claiming  thofe  foreign  Circumjlances  which 
he  hadfalfely  introduced  into  his  CharaSier^  and  thus  rendering  the  Sa- 
iirijl  doubly  ridiculous  in  his  Turn.  See  here  again  !  all  his  Concern, 
we  find,  is,  left  good  Raillery  fhould  be  beat  at  its  own  Weapons. 
No,  indeed,  I  cannot  fee  how  it  could  pofTibly  hinder  the  Philofo- 
pher  from  deteSling  and  dfclaiming.  But  this  it  did,  which  furely 
deferves  a  little  Reflexion,  it  hindered  the  People  irom  feeing  what 

he  had  dete£led  and  dfclaimed A  mighty  Confolation,  truly,  to 

expiring  Virtue,  that  he  difclaimed  tiie  Fool's  Coat  they  had  put 
upon  him ;  though  it  ftuck  to  him  like  a  Sambenito ;  and  at  laft 
brought  him  to  his  Execution. 

But  what  is  the  Sacrifice  of  a  Socrates  now  and  then,  to  fecure 
the  free  Ufe  of  that  ineftimable  Bleffing,  Buffhonry  ?  So  thinks 
our  Poet ;  when  all  the  Anfwer  he  gives  to  fo  natural,  fo  compaf- 
fionate  an  Obje£lion  as  this.  No :  but  it  neverthelefs  had  an  ill  In- 
fuence  on  the  Minds  of  the  People,  is  telling  us  a  Story  of  the  Atheift 
Spinoza  ;  while  .the  Godlike  Socrates  is  left  negle6led,  and  in  the 
L  I  2  Hands 


26o        PREFACE    TO    REMARKS 

Ihiuls  of  his  Judges ;  whither  Ridicule,  this  noble  Guide  of  Troth, 

had  fnftly  brought  him. 

But  let  us   hcnr  the   concluding;  Anfvver  which    tlie  rerpc<ftaLle 

Spinoza  is  employed  to  illuftrate. JudJ'o  (lays  he)  has  the  Rea- 

fonifig  o/" Spinoza  made  vmny  Jtheijls ;  he  hasfotmded  it  indeed  o?i  Sup- 
fofitiom  utterly  falfe ;  6ut  allow  him  thefe,  and  his  Conclujions  ars 
unav'jidably  true.  Jnd  if  we  mufi  rejedl  the  Ufe  of  Ridicule  becaufe, 
i>v  the  Iwp'-fition  of  fa[fe  Circumfances,  things  may  be  made  to  feem 
ridicuf'ous,  which  are  not  fo  in  therrfehes  j  mshy  we  ought  not  in  the 
fame  h'Lvnier  to  rejeSi  the  Ufe  of  Reafcn,  becaufe,  by  proceeding  on  falfe 
Principles^  Conclufons  ivill  appear  true  which  are  imprffible  in  Na- 
ture, let  the  vehement  and  obflinate  Deckioiers  againft  Ridicule 
determine. 

Nay,  we  dare  trufl  it  with  any  one  ;  whofe  Common  Senfe  is  not 
all  turned  to  Tajie.  Whut  !  Becaufe  Reason,  the  Guide  of  Life, 
tlic  Support  of  Religion,  the  Inveftigator  of  Truth,  muft  be  ftiU 
iilcd  though  it  be  continually  Subjeft  to  Abufe  :  therefore  Ridi_ 
CULE,  the  paultry  Buffoon  of  Reafon,  muft  have  the  fame  Indul- 
gence !  Becaufe  a  King  muft  be  intrufted  with  Government, 
though  he  may  mlfufe  his  Power ;  therefore  the  King's  Fool 
(hall  be  fuffered  to  play  the  Madman  !  But  upon  what  footing 
ftandcth  this  extraordinary  claim  ?  Why,  we  have  a  natural  Setfe 
of  the  Ridiculous ;  and  the  Ridiculous  has  a  natural  Feeling   of  the 

Incongruous  ;  and   then ivko  can  forbear  laughing  ?     If  to  this, 

you  add  Tajie,  Beauty,  Deformity,  Moral- fenfe.  Moral  reSiitude,  Mo- 
ral-falfood,  you  have  then,  I  think,  the  whole  Theory  of  the  Ri- 
diculous. But  I  can  tell  him  of  a  plain  Engliff  Proverb  worth  all  his 
Modifh  Ideas  of  Beauty  and  Virtue  put  together,  and  that  is,  to  be 
MERRY  AND  WISE.  Which  concerns  him  nearer  than  one  may  think. 
For  who  would  imagine,  that,  while  he  was  fupporting  Ridicule 
from  the  Charge  of  Abufe,  he  fhould  be  fupplying  his  Adverfary 
with  a  frefli  and  flagrant  Exception  to  his  own  Plea?  Not  in- 
deed, that  the  Comment  difgraced  the  Text;  or  that  there  was 
much  Incongruity  in  pleading  for  a  Fault  he  had  juft  then  com- 
mitted. 


ON  OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.       261 

mitted,.  But  fo  it  is,  kind  Reader,  that,  where  he  is  mnrfliallingthe 
feveral  Clares  of  Folly  in  human  Life,  he  places  the  whole  Body  of 
the  Chrijlian  Clergy  in  the  Firfl  and  Foremofl :  Amongfl:  thofe, 
who,  he  tells  us,  ajfttme  fame  dejirable  ^ality  or  PoJfeJJion  which 
evidently  does  not  belong  to  them*. 

"Others,  of  graver  Mien,  behold;  adorn'd 

"  With  holy  Enfigns,  how fublime  they  move, 

"  And,  bending  oft  xhtir Jlm^imonious  Eyes, 

"  Take  homage  oi  ihz  SiTnpk'7ninded  Throng^. 

*'  Ambassadors  of  Heav'n  -{-." 

And  well  do  they  deferve  his  Moral-ridicule,  fuppofing  them  to- 
be  drawn  like.  For,  if  I  underfland  any  Thing  of  his  Colour- 
ing, the  Features  are.  Pride,  Hypocrify,  Fraud,  and  Impofture.  I 
call  it  an  Infuk  on  the  whole  Body  of  the  Clergy,  becaufe  I  know 
of  no  Part  of  them  who  hold  that  the  Mini/lry  of  the  Gofpel  (or, 
as  St.  Paul  calls  it,  of  Reconciliation)  was  given  them  by  the  Re- 
ligion of  Chr'f,  but  hold  likewife,  with  the  fame  Apoftle  (who- 
fpeaks  of  himfelf  here  as  a  fimple  Minifter  of  the  Gofpel)  that  they 

are  Ambassadors  for  Chrif  \. But  let  it  go  like  what  it  is,  a 

poor  pitiful  Joke  of  his  Mafler's  §,  and  fpoil'd  too  in  the  telling,. 
The  Dulnefs  of  the  Ridicule  will  fufficiently  atone  for  the  Abtfe 
of  it.  And  I  may  find  Time  to  call  the  Great  Man  of  Tafte  himfelf 
to  account,  for  his  fo  frequent  and  ill-employed  Raillery  againft 
Religion. 

*  P.  49.  t  P.  96.  X  1  Cor.  V.  23. 

§  Char,  vol.  III.  p.  536.     Third  edit,. 


REMARK 


[     2^5     ] 


REMARKS 


ON    SEVERAL 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS. 


THE  State  of  Authorfliip,  whatever  that  of  Nature  be,  is 
certainly  a  State  of  War  :  In  which,  efpecially  if  it  be  aa 
holy  War,  every  Man's  hand  is  fet,  not  againfl:  his  Enemy,  but  his 
Brother.  But  as  thefe  furious  fighting  men  are  generally  as  much 
miflaken  in  the  ufe  of  their  Arms,  as  in  the  Objeds  of  their  Refent- 
ments,  there  is  feldom  any  great  Harm  done.  I  fpeak  for  myfelf^ 
1  have  found  none.  And  indeed  no  wonder.  I  have  been  all  th& 
\vhile  very  much  out  of  the  quefllon.  For  my  Anfwerers  write  not 
fo  properly  aga'mjl  me,  as  for  fomethlng  they  like  better  than  me- 
This,  for  his  dear  Orthodoxy  ;  That,  for  his  dearer  Philojbpbers  j  A 
third,  for  his  Laivyers  ;  A  fourth,  for  his  CabalUjls  ;  A  fifth,  for 
himfelf;  and  a  fixth  for,  I  don't  know  what,  befides  the  pure  Love 
cf  Scribbling  *.  So  that  I  have  been  now,  for  fome  time,  only  a 
filent  Looker-on  ;  to  fee  how  the  Public  and  they  would  got  ac- 
quainted.    I  have  given  them  full  Liberty  to  try  what  They  caii 

*  VVebfler,  TiUard,  W  *  *,  Bate,  Morgan,  Bott. 

malte 


-04  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

make  of  it,  or  h  of  tliem :  nnd  wifh  them  better  luck  with  their 
Readers  Iiitcllecls  than  I  have  had  with  theirs.  For,  from  the  firft 
to  the  lafl:  of  them,  their  conftant  cry  has  been,  Tiey  do  not  tmder- 
JiarJ  mr.  Now,  though  I  can  allow  this  to  be  a  better  Reafon  for 
their  writing  at  me  than  any  they  have  hitherto  affigned  ;  yet  it 
would  be  a  very  bad  one  for  my  anfwering  them  ;  becaufe  it  would 
keep  me  engaged  till  they  did  underjiand  me  ;  which  I  prefume  no 
gentle  Reader  would  think  a  reafonable  Talk  for  one  born  whea 
human  Life  is  at  the  Ihorteft.  When  therefore  I  took  my  laft  leave 
of  the  whole  Tribe,  in  the  Perfon  of  their  great  Exemplar  and  Ar- 
chetype, the  learned  Advocate  of  Pagan  Philofophy,  I  engaged, 
that  if  any  Writers  more  equal  to  the  fubjeft  (hould  come  abroad, 
1  would  return  their  Civility  and  fair  Argument  in  fuch  fort  as  that 
the  World  fhould  fee  I  efteemed  every  fuicere  Inquirer  after  Truth 
rather  as  a  Friend  to  the  Publick  than  an  Enemy  to  myfelf.  Since 
that  time,  the  Misfortune  I  had  of  differing  in  Opinion  from  fome 
Writers  of  great  Merit  and  Learning  has  been  the  dilagreeable  Oc- 
^afion  of  reminding  me  of  my  Promife. 


5  E  C  T.    L 
See  Divine  Legation,  Book  IV.  Seifl.  6.  fub  fin, 

OF  thefe,  the  firft  place  would  be  due  to  my  very  learned 
Friend,  the  Author  of  the  elegant  and  ufeful  -Letter  from 
Rome  ;  who,  taking  entirely  to  himfelf  what  was  meant  in  general 
of  the  numerous  Writers  on  the  fame  Subjeft,  and  the  more  nu- 
merous Followers  of  the  fame  Hypothefis,  hath  done  a  *  Notion 
of  mine  the  Honour  of  his  Confutation,  in  a  Pojlfcript  to  that 
Letter.     But  the  fame  friendly  Confiderations,  which  induced  him 

*  Divine  Legat.  lib.  iv.  §  6.  fub  fia. 

to 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         :65 

to  end  the  Poflfcrlpt  with  declaring  his  Uiuvilliiignefs  to  enter  fur- 
ther into  Controverfy  with  me,  have  diipofed  me  not  to  enter  into 
it  at  all.  This,  and  neither  any  Negled  of  him,  nor  any  Force  I 
apprehend  in  his  Arguments,  have  kept  me  filent.  In  the  mean 
time,  1  owe  fo  much  both  to  rnylelf  and  the  Public,  as  to  take  no- 
tice of  a  Mifreprefentution  of  my  Argument  ;  and  a  Change  of  the  ^tief- 
t'lon  in  Difpute  between  us  :  Without  which  Notice,  the  Contro- 
verly  (as  I  agree  to  leave  it  in  his  Hands)  could  fcarce  receive  an 
equitable  Deciiion.  The  Mifreprefentation  I  fpeak  of  is  in  thefe 
words  :  "  He  [the  Author  of  the  D.  L.]  allows  that  the  Writers, 
"  who  have  undertaken  to  deduce  the  Rites  of  Popery  from  Pagan  fm^ 
*'  havefiewn  an  cxciSi  and  /nrprifng  hikcnef  between  them  in  a  great 
♦'  Variety  of  h fiance i.  This  (fays  he)  one  W'ould  think,  is  allowing 
*'  every  thing  that  the  Caufe  demands  :  It  is  every  thing,  I  dare  fay, 
"  that  thofe  Writers  defire  *."  That  it  is  every  thing  tbofe  Writers 
defire,  I  can  eafily  believe,  fuice  1  fee  my  learned  Friend  himfelf 
hath  taken  it  for  granted,  that  thefe  two  Aflertions,  i.  7'<6f  Reli- 
gion of  the  prefent  Romans  derived  from  that  of  their  heathen  Ancef- 
tors  ;  and,  2.  An  exaSl  Conformity  or  Uniformity  rather  of  IVorfyp  bc^ 
fvceen  Popery  and  Paganifm,  are  convertible  Propofitions.  For,  un- 
dertaking, as  his  Title  Page  informs  us,  to  prove,  the  Religion  -of 
the  prefent  Romans  derived  from  that  of  their  heathen  Ancef  ors\  and 
having  gone  through  his  Arguments,  he  concludes  them  in  thefe 
Words,  "  But  it  is  high  time  for  me  to  conclude,  being  perfuaded, 
*'  if  I  do  not  flatter  myfelf  too  much,  that  I  have  fufficiently  made 
•'  good  WHAT  I  FIRST  UNDERTOOK  TO  PROVE,  an  exaft  Con- 
*♦  formity  or  Uniformity  rather  of  Woifhip  between  Popery  and 
*'  Paganifm  +•"  But  what  he  undertook  to  prove,  we  fee,  was.  The 
Religion  of  the  prefent  Romans  derived  from  their  heathen  Ancef- 
iors.  That  I  have,  therefore,  as  my  learned  Friend  obferves,  al- 
lowed every  thing  thofe  Writers  defre,  is  very  likely.  But  then, 
whether  I  have  allowed  every  thing  that  the  Caufe  demands y  is  another 

•  Poftfcripr,  p.  azS.  t  Letter,  p.  224. 

Vol.  VL  M  m  QueOion, 


,66  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

Qucftion.  Which  1  think  cnn  never  be  determined  in  the  Affir- 
n.ative,  till  it  be  flicwn  that  no  other  probable  Caufe  can  be  afligned 
of  this  exaSl  Conformity  kiwceti  Papijis  ami  Pagans,  but  a  Borrow 
in^  or  Derivation  from  one  to  the  other.  And  I  guefs,  this  is  not  now 
ever  likely  to  be  done,  iince  1  myfelf  have  adually  adigned  another 
f  rotable  Caufe^  namely,  tiie  fame  Spirit  of  Superfition  operating  in 
equal  Crcumjianccs. 

But  this  judly  celebrated  Writer  goes  on — '■'■  This  Queftion,  ac- 
»'  cording  to  his  [the  Author  oiThe  Divine  Legation']  Notion,  is  not 
**  to  be  decided  by  Fails,  but  by  a  Principle  of  a  different  Kind,  a 
*•'■  fuperior  Knowledge  of  human  Nature  *."  Here  I  am  forced  to  com- 
plain of  a  want  of  Candour,  a  want  not  natural  to  my  learned 
Friend.  For,  whence  is  it,  1  would  afli,  that  he  collefts,  that^ 
according  to  my  Notion^  this  ^ejiion  is  not  to  be  decided  by  Facls,  but 
afupcrior  Knowledge  of  human  Nature  ?  From  any  thing  1  have 
laid :  Or  from  any  thing  I  have  omitted  to  fay  ?  Surely,  not 
from  any  thing  I  have  faid  (though  he  feems  to  infinuate  To  much 
by  putting  the  Words  a  fuperlor  Knowledge  of  human  Nature  in 
Italick  Charaders,  as  they  are  called)  becaufe  1  leave  him  in  poffef- 
fion  of  his  Fa£ls^  and  give  them  all  their  full  Validity ;  which  he 
himfelf  obferves  ;  and,  from  thence,  as  we  fee,  endeavours  to  draw 
fome  Advantage  to  his  Hypothefis :  Nor  from  any  thing  I  have 
omitted  to  fay  ;  for,  in  the  (hort  Paragraph  where  I  delivered  my 
Opinion,  and,  by  reafon  of  its  Evidence,  offered  but  one  fingle 
Argument  in  its  Support,  that  Argument  arifes  from  a  fuppofcd 
P"act,  viz.  that  \\\Q  fuperfilious  Cufoms  in  quefion  were  many  Jges 
later  than  the  Convcrfon  of  the  imperial  City  to  the  Chrijtian  Fa:tb : 
Whence  I  concluded  that  the  ruling  Churchmen  could  have  na 
Motive  in  borrowing  from  Pagan  Cufloms,  either  as  they  were 
then  fafliionable  in  themfelves,  or  refpedable  for  the  Number  or 
Quality  of  their  Followers.  The  Suppojition  I  could  eafily  convert 
ixito  a  Proofs  were  I  not  reflrained  by  the  Confiderations   before 

*  Pollfcript,  p.  228. 

fpokea 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  267 

fpoken  of.  And  what  makes  this  the  more  extraordinary  is,  that 
my  learned  Friend  himfell"  Immediately  afterwards  quotes  thefe 
words  ;  and  then  tells  the  Reader  that  the  Argument  conji/fs  if  an 
HISTORICAL  Fact  and  of  a  Confquence  deduced  from  'it.  It  appears 
therefore,  that,  according  to  my  Notion,  the  Queftion  is  to  be  de- 
cided by  FaSis,  and  not  by  z  fuperior  Knowledge  of  human  Ntitiire, 
Yet  I  muft  confefs  I  then  thought,  and  do  fo  flill,  that  a  fuperior 
Knowltdge  of  human  Nature  would  do  no  Harm,  as  it  Oiight  enable 
Men  to  judge  htltex  oi  Fa5is  than  we  generally  find  them  accuf- 
tomed  to  do.  But  will  this  excufe  a  candid  Reprefenter  for  faying, 
that  the  ^lejiion,  according  to  my  Notion,  ivas  not  to  be  decided  by 
Fa£ls,  but  a  fuperior  Knotvledge  of  human  Nature  ?  However,  to 
do  my  learned  Friend  all  Juflice,  I  muft  needs  (ay,  that,  as  if  thefe 
were  only  Words  of  Courfe,  or  Words  of  Controverfy,  he  goes  on, 
through  the  Body  of  his  Pojlfcript,  to  invalidate  my  Argument  from  . 
FiiB;  and  we  hear  no  more  of  z  fuperior  Knoivlcdge  of  human  Nature 
than  in  this  Place  where  it  was  brought  in  to  be  laughed  at. 

As  to  the  Argument,  it  muft  even  fhift  for  Itfelf.  It  has  done 
more  Mifchief  already  than  I  was  aware  of:  And  forced  my  learned 
Friend  to  extend  his  Charge  from  the  modern  to  the  ancient  Church 
of  Rome.  For  my  Argument,  from  the  low  Birth  of  the  Superrti- 
tions  in  Queftion,  coming  againft  his  Hypothefs  after  he  had  once 
and  again  declared  the  Purpofe  of  his  Letter  to  be  the  expofing  the 
heathenifh  Idolatry  and  Superftition  of  the  prefnt  Church  of  Rome  ; 
he  was  obliged,  in  fupport  of  that  Hypothecs,  to  fliew  that  even 
the  early  Ages  of  the  Cliurch  were  not  free  from  the  Infedlion. 
Which  hath  now  quite  fhifted  the  Subjeft  with  tlie  Scene,  and 
will  make  the  Argument  of  his  Piece  from  henceforth  to  run  thus, 
The  Religion  of  the  prefent  Romans  derived  from  their  early  Chriflian 
Ancejiors ;  and  theirs,  from  the  neighbouring  Pagans.  To  fpeak 
freely,  my  Reafoning  (which  was  an  Argument  ^^  ^ow/w^-w,  and, 
as  fuch,  I  thought  would  have  been  reverenced)  reduced  the  learn- 
ed Writer  to  this  Dilemma  ;  either  to  allow  the  Fad,  and  give  up 
Mm  2  hie 


268  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

his  Hypithefis ;  or  to  deny  the  Faft,  and  change  his  Queftlon. 
And  he  has  chofcn  the  latter  as  the  lefler  Evil.  For  a  fimple  ^rf- 
tion  is  but  like  a  Wife  to  wrangle  with  ;  and  when  we  lole  one  we 
tafily  find  another.  But  the  Hypothejis  begot  upon  it  is  of  the 
Nature  of  one's  OtF^pring,  whofe  Lofs  perhaps  is  irreparable.  I  find, 
however,  his  Lincoln  s  Inn  Advocate  never  thought  him  wedded  to 
his  Queftlon;  for  he  takes  the  Change  of  it,  like  the  Change  of  a 
Wiftrtfs,  for  Politenefs  ;  and  has  accufed  me  not  only  of  ill-breed- 
ing, h\Moi  Contradinion,  becaufe  I  would  not  change  it  too.  I  had 
Jhewn,  in  my  firjl  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legation,  that  the  ancient 
Cbrijlians  of  Greece  iiad  borrowed  federal  forms  of  Speech  from  the 
Pagan  Myilerles  :  And  in  my  fecond,  I  had  denied  that  the  modern 
Chrifiiam  of  Rome  had  borrowed/"Uf/-^/  Forms  of  IVorJJ.vp  from  the 
Pagan  Ritual.  On  which,' our  Advocate  catching  me  at  this  Ad- 
vantage, thus  candidly  expoftulates  with  me.  Thus  the  same  Fact, 
ivhift  if  iends  to  prove  a  part  of  a  favourite  Hypothefs,  is  in  your  Hands 
r.oiorioufiy  true  \  but  it  is  no  fooner  made  ufeojby  the  ingenious  Author 
Jo  often  mentioned  [Dr.  M.]  than  it  praves  to  be  an  utter  M'fiake  *. 
And  again,  the  different  Opinions  which  on  different  Occafons you 
have  entertained  of  this  Matter,  may  ferve  to  teach  us  -j-,  Gff .  ©"r. 
But  let  me  affure  this  Writer,  that  when  I  fpoke  of  the  Ancients 
borrowing  JVords  from  the  Pagan  Myjieries,  1  no  more  meant  the 
M.derns  borrowing  Rites  from  their  open  JVor/hip,  than,  when  \  I 
fpoke  of  Anfwerers  by  Profeffion,  I  meant  Laivyers  by  Profefjion  ; 
who,  without  flattering  them,  I  may  fay,  deferve  as  little  the  Cha- 
rader  there  given  of  the  faid  Anfwerers  as  I  do  tiie  Calumnies  here 
bcftowed  by  this  iMter  Writer. 

But  his  Charge  of  Contradiction  was  excvifable.  The  Do6lor  had 
led  him  up  to  the  primitive  Church,  and  there  he  found  me  ;  and 
there  he  fuppofed  1  had  always  been  :  And  feeing  me  not  quite  con- 
formable to  the  Doctor's  Declfions,  he  would  q^uarrel  with  me  for  a 

*  Letter  from  a  Gentleman  of  Lincoln's-Inn,  p.  55.  f  Page  59. 

X  Divine  Legation,  Appendix  to  Book  IIL  vol.  IL  p.  216. 

Schifmatlc. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  269 

Schifmatic.  But  I  can  cafily  overlook  this  (that  he  took  upon 
triift,  as  he  did  his  Greek)  for  the  fiike  of  fo  charitable  Office  as 
the  teaching  me  how  to  write  ;  whicli  he  kindly  proftlics  to  be  the 
whole  Purpofe  of  his  Letter. 

My  learned  Friend  will  excufe  my  fpeaking  thus  much  of  aCon- 
troverfy  which  he  knows,  from  the  Time  of  the  firft  Publication  of 
his  Pojfcript,  1  had  intended  not  to  keep  up.  But  thus  much  was 
neceflary  to  ftate  it  truly,  and  to  hold  it  fairly  on  the  Foot  whereon 
he  firft  placed  it,  and  1  had  left  it.  As  to  the  Subjed  itfelf,  fo 
curious  and  interefting,  if  ever  I  lliould  be  difpofed  to  treat  it  at 
large,  as  poflibly  I  may,  I  would  chufe  to  do  it  in  Thejxy  and  not  \w 
profecutlon  of  any  particular  Controverfy. 


SECT.    ir. 

See  Divine  Legation,  Book  IV.  Seft.  4. 

'"T^  HE  firft  Writer  I  am  concerned  with  is  the  Reverend  Dr.  Ri- 
chard  Pococke :  Who,  in  his  late  Book  of  Travels,  hath  a 
Chapter  on  the  ancient  Hieroglyphics  of  the  Egyptians,  wherein,  iii 
oppofition  to  my  Account  of  the  Nature  of  that  Kind  of  Wrlriiif^, 
he  exprcfieth  himfelf  as  follows — "  If  Hieroglyphical  Figures  flood 
"  for  Words  or  Sounds  that  fignified  certain  things,  the  Power  of 
"  Hieroglyphics  feems  to  be  the  fame  as  of  a  Number  of  Letters 
"  compofing  fuch  a  Sound,  that  by  Agreement  was  made  to  llgnify 
"  fuch  a  thing.  For  Hieroglyphics,  as  Words,  feem  to  have  flood 
"  for  Sounds,  and  Sounds  fignify  Things;  as  for  inftance,  it  might 
*'  have  been  agreed  that  the  Figure  of  a  Crocodile  might  fland  for- 
*'  the  Sound  that  meant  what  we  call  Malice :  The  children  of  the 
"  Prlefts  were  early  taught  that  the  Figure  of  a  Crocodile  flood  for 
"  fuch  a  Sound,  and,  if  they  did  not  know  the  Meaning  of  the 
"  Sound,  it  would  certainly  fland  with  them  for  a  Sound  ;  though^ 
*■'■  as  the  Sound,  it  fignified  alfo  a  Quality  or  Thing  ;  and  they 

•■'  might 


ar7« 


REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
•'  might  afterwards  be  taught  the  Meaning  of  this  Sound  ;  as  words 
••  are  only  Sounds,  which  Sounds  we  agree  fhall  lignify  fuch  and 
«'  Uichthmgs;  fo  that,  to  Children,  Words  only  ftand  for  Sounds, 
"  which  relate  to  fuch  Things  as  they  know  nothing  of;  and,  in 
*'  this  Scnfe,  we  lay  Children  learn  many  Things  like  Parrots, 
•'  what  they  do  not  underfland,  and  their  Memories  are  exercifed 
♦•  oi'.iy  about  Sounds,  till  they  are  inftrufted  in  the  Meaning  of  the 
■•'  Words.  This  I  thought  it  might  be  proper  to  obfcrve,  asfome 
*'  fa\  Hieroghphicsjood  for  Things  and  not  for  Words,  if  Sounds  ar- 
*'  ticulated  in  a  certain  manner  are  Words.  And  though  it  may  be 
««  faid,  that  in  this  cafe,  when  different  Nations,  of  different  Lan- 
"  gu^g^s,  agree  on  common  CharatSers,  that  {land  for  certain 
"  Things  they  agree  on,  that  then  fuch  Figures  ftand  for  Things  : 
♦*  This  will  be  allowed  ;  but  then  they  ftand  for  Sounds  too,  that 
'•  is,  the  Sounds  in  each  Language  that  fignify  fuch  Things  :  And, 
•'  as  obferved  before,  to  Children,  who  know  nothing  of  the  feve- 
*'  ral  Things  they  ftand  for ;  to  tliem  they  are  only  Marks  that 
♦'  exprefs  fuch  and  fuch  Sounds :  So  that  thefe  Figures  ftand  not 
*'  for  Things  alone,  but  as  W'ords,  for  Sounds  and  Things  *." 

The  Defign  of  this  Paflage,  the  Reader  fees,  Is  to  oppofe  the 
Principle  I  went  upon,  in  explaining  the  Egyptian  Hieroglyphics, 
Thai  they  food  for  Things,  and  not  for  JVords.  But  that  is  all  he 
fees  ;  for  the  obfcureExpreflion,  arifing  from  a  Confufion  of  Ideas, 
will  not  fuffer  one  to  do  more  than  guefs  at  the  Proof  he  aims  at ; 
which  feems  to  be  this — That  Hieroglyphics  cannot  be  faid  to  ftand 
for  Things  only;  becaufe  Things  being  denoted  by  Words  or  Sounds ; 
and  Hieroglyphics  exciting  the  Idea  of  Sounds  (which  are  the  Notes 
of  Things),  as  well  as  the  Idea  of  the  Things  themfelves,  Hiero- 
glyphics fland  both  for  Sounds  and  Things. — This  feems  to  be  his 
Argument,  put  into  intelligible  Language.  But,  for  fear  of  mlf- 
taking  him,  let  us  confine  ourfelves  to  his  own  Words. 

•  Pag.  11%,  229,  of  a  Book  intituled,  A  Defcription  of  the  Eaft,  &c. 

If 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  271 

If  hierogJyphical  Figures  (iays  he)  Jiood  for  Words  or  Sounds  that 
jlgnified  certain  Thi'igs,  the  Power  of  Huroglypbks  feems  to  be  the 
fume  as  of  a  Number  of  Letters  compofing  Juch  a  Sound  that  bv  yl^ree- 
metit  was  made  to  fgnfy.  fuch  a 'Thing.  Without  doubt,  if  Hiero- 
glyphics flood  for  Sounds,  they  were  of  the  Nature  of  fVords,  which 
lh\nd  for  Sounds.  But  this  is  only  an  hypothetical  Propofition  :  Let 
us  fee  therefore  how  he  proves  it. 

For  HieroglyphicSy  AS  Words,  fccm  to  have  Jiood  for  Sounds,  and 
Sounds fignify  Things  ;  as  for  hflance^.  it  might  have  been  agreed  that 
the  Figure  of  a  Crocodile  uiGnr  fand  for  the  fame  Sound  thai  meant 
'what  we  call  Malice.  The  Propriety  of  the  ExpreHion  is  as  re- 
markable as  the  Force  of  the  Reafoning.  \.  Inftead  of  fiiying,  but 
Hieroglyphics,  he  fays,  for  Hieroglyphics  ;  which  not  exprefling  au> 
Illation,  but  implying  a  Reajon,  obfcures  the  Argument  he  would 
llluflrate.  2.  He  fays,  Hieroglyphics,  as  Words,  feem  to  have  food 
for  Sounds.  Juft  before  he  faid,  Hieroglyphics  flood  for  Words  or. 
Sounds.  Here  they  are  a^  Words,  or,.  Ai^  Words,  znti  feem  tojland 
FOR  Sound.  What  muft  we  flick  to  ?■  are  Words  Sound  ?  or,  ^o 
xXiey  Jland  for  Sound  ?  He  has  given  us  both  to  chufe  of.  But  it 
is  fit  himfelf  fhould  chufe  hrft:  :  Which  not  having  yet  done,  we 
go  on,  3.  Laflly,  to  complete  all,  he  corroborates  this  jecming  Truth 
by  an  Injlance  in  which  the  Pofjibility  of  its  flauding  for  a  Sound  is 
mandea  Proof  of  the  jL;/y//7jo£)^  of  its  fo  doing;  //  might  (fays  he) 
have  been  agreed  that  the  Figure  of  a  Crocodile  MiGnT  fatid,  t5r. 

But  he  makes  amends  for  his  former  Diffidence  in  what  follows.. 
T.he  Children  of  the  Priejis  were  early  taught  that  the  Figure  of  a  Cro^ 
codile  Jiood  for  fuch  a  Sound,  and  if  they  did  not  know  the  meaning  of  the 
Sound  it  would  certainly  f  and  with  them  for  a  Sound.  This  indeed  is- 
an  Anecdote.  But  where  did  he  learn  that  thefe  Children,  before 
they  could  decipher  the  Sounds  of  their  own  Language,  were 
taught  Hieroglyphics  ?  Till  now.  Hieroglyphics  were  underftood. 
to  be  referved  for  thofe  inflruded  in  their  fecret  and  myflerious. 
Science.  But  let  us  fuppofe  that  they  were  taught  to  Children, 
amongfl  their  firfl  Elements :  Yet  even  here,  as  we  fhall  fee  from. 

tlie 


ryi  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

tl»e  N.uurc  of  the  Thing,  they  could  never  ftand  as  Marks  for 
//VtA  or  Souml.  When  a  Child  is  taught  the  Power  of  Letters, 
he  learns  that  thofe  Letters,  that  compofe  the  Word  Malice,  for 
niftance,  exprds  the  ^ow//.-/.-  which,  naturally  arifing  from  a  Com- 
bination of  the  kveral  Powers  of  each  Letter,  (hews  him  that  the 
Letters  Oand  for  fuch  a  Sound  or  Word.  But  when  he  is  taught 
that  the  Figure  or  Pidlure  of  a  Crocodile  fignifies  Malice,  he  as  natu- 
rally and  neceflarily  conceives  (though  he  knows  not  the  meaning 
of  the  Word)  that  it  flands  for  fome  Thing  fignified  by  tliat  Word, 
and  not  for  ^Sound:  becaufe  there  is  no  natural  Connexion  between 
Figure  and  a  Sound,  as  there  is  between  Figure  and  a  Thing.  And 
the  only  Reafon  why  the  word  Malice  intervenes,  in  this  Connex- 
ion, is  becaufe  of  the  Neceflity  of  the  \J{eo{  IVords  to  diftinguifh 
Thlnss,  and  rank  them  into  forts.  But  the  veriefl:  Child  could 
never  be  fo  childifli  as  to  -conceive  that,  when  he  was  told  the 
Figure  of  a  Beaft  with  four  Legs  and  a  long  Tail  lignlfied  Malice^ 
that  it  {ignified  the  Sound  of  Malice  ;  any  more  than  if  he  were  told 
it  fignified  a  Crocodde,  that  it  Ggnitied  the  Sound  of  the  Word  Cro- 
codile.  The  Truth  is,  the  Ignorant  often  miftake  Words  for  Things, 
but  never,  Things  for  Words.  The  former  is  fo  true  that  they  fre- 
quently take  the  name  of  a  Thing  for  its  Nature  ;  and  reft  contented 
in  the  Knowledge  which  that  gives  them.  I  remember  a  Country 
Fellow  ftareing  at  the  Plfture  of  an  Elephant,  a  thing  he  had  never 
feen  before,  alked  his  Friend  who  flood  by,  What  it  was  f  and,  oii 
his  anfwering,  that  it  was  the  great  C%ar,  inquired  no  further,  but 
went  away  well  fatisfied  in  his  Acquaintance  with  the  ftrange 
Beaft.  Yet  I  apprehend  he  did  not  underftand  his  Informer  to  mean 
that  it  fignified  only  the  Sound  of  that  Word.  But  perhaps  our 
Author  will  fay,  the  Caies  are  different  ;  that  the  Elephant  was  a 
mere  Pidure,  and  the  Crocodile  a  Sign  or  Mark,  But  1  have  proved 
at  large  that  the  ancient  Egyptian  Hieroglyphics  were  at  firft  mere 
Fiilures ;  and  that  all  the  Alteration  they  received,  in  becoming 
Mark],  was  only  the  having  their  general  Ufe  of  conveying  Know- 
ledge rendered  more  extenfive  and  expeditious. 

To 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  273 

To  proceed  ;  our  Author  confiders  next  what  he  apprehends  may 
be  thought  an  Objedion  to  his  Opinion,.  And  though  (lays  he)  // 
may  be  fn'id  that^  in  this  Cafe^  where  different  Nations  of  different 
Languages  agree  an  common  CbaraSIers,  that  Jiand for  certain  Things 
they  agree  on,  that  then  fuch  Figures  ff and  for  Things.  To  which  he 
anfwers,.  This  will  he  allotved,  but  then  they  Jland for  Sounds  too,  that 
isy  the  Sounds  in  each  Language  that  f.gnify  fuch  Things.  He  who 
ean  allow  this,  and  without  Injury  to  his  Caufe,  need  be  under  no 
Fear  of  ever  giving  iiis  Adverfary  Advantages.  We  may  exped  to 
hear  him  fay  next,  when  difputing  about  th&  Colour  of  an  Objefl — 
that  it  is  Black,  will  be  allowed ;  but  then  it  is  White  too.  For  a 
Mark  for  Things  can  no  more  be  a  Mark  for  Sounds,  than  Black  can 
be  White.  The  Reafon  is  the  fame  in  both  ;  the  one  Property  ex- 
cludes the  other  :  Thus,  li  hieroglyphic  Marks  {\.M\d  (ov  Things,  and 
are  ufed  as  common  Characters  by  various  Nations  differing  in  Speech 
and  Language,  they  cannot  ftand  for  Sounds  ;  becaufe  thefe  Men 
exprefs  the  fame  Thing  by  different  Sounds  ;  unlefs,  to  remove  this 
Difficulty,,  he  will  go  farther,  and  fay,  not,  as  he  did  before,  that 
one  hieroglyphic  Word  (to  ufe  his  own  Language)  ffood  for  one  Sound, 
but,  that  it  Hands  for  an  Hundred.  Again,  \i  hieroglyphic  Marks 
fland  for  Sounds,  they  cannot  fland  for  Things:  Not  for  thofe 
Things  which  are  not  fignitied  by  fuch  Sounds ;  this  himfelf  wmII 
allow :  Nor  yet,  I  affirm,  for  thofe  which  are  ;  becaufe  ir  is  the 
Sound  that  flands  for  the  Thing  fignified  by  the  Sound,  and  not  the 
hieroglyphic  Mark.  But  all  this  Miftake  proceeded  from  another 
as  grofs,  though  lefs  glaring,  namely,  that  Words  fand  both  for 
Sounds  and  Things,  which  we  now  come  to.  For  he  concludes  thus, 
.So  that  thefe  Figures  (viz.  Hieroglyphics  J  Jland  not  Jor  Things,  alone, 
but,  as  Words,  for  Sounds  and  Things.  An  unhappy  Illuflrstion  * 
which  has  all  the  Defedts,  both  in  point  of  Senfe  and  Expreffioii, 
that  a  Propofition  can  well  have.  For  if,  by  VArds,  lie  meant  ar- 
ticulated Sounds,  then  the  Expreffion  is  Nonfenfe,  as  affica:!ing,  that 
Sounds  ffand  for  Sounds.  And  that  he  meant  fo  is  poflibic,  becaufe,, 
in  the  Beglnnhig.  of  the  Pailage  quoted,  he  ufes  Words,  for  ariicu- 
Vol.  VI.  N  a  tat& 


2;4  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

latt'  Sounds ■Hterog!yf>hics,  fays  he,  Jhod  for  IFords  or  Sounds. 

Rut  if,  by  Wards,  he  meant  Letters  (and  that  he  might  mean  fo, 
is  poliible  likewile,  for  he  prefently  afterwards  ufes  IVords  in  that 
Scnfe  too — Hieroglyphics  as  fiords,  fays  \\t^  J'eem  to  have  Jiood  for 
Sounds)  then  the  Propofition  is  only  falfe ;  the  plain  Truth  being 
thi;,  Letters  Jland for  Sounds  only;  which  Sounds  they  naturally  pro- 
duce ;  as  Sounds  cirbitrarily  denote  Things. 

But  to  be  a  little  more  particular ;  as  in  this  Diftintftion  lies  the 
Judgment  which  is  to  be  made,  if  ever  it  be  rightly  made,  of  the 
CiMitroverfy  between  us.  All  this  Confufion  of  counter- reafoning 
proceeds,  as  we  obferved  before,  frf,  from  not  reflefting  that 
Letters,  which  ftand  for  Words,  and  Hieroglyphics  which  ftand  for 
Things,  have  not  an  arbitrary  but  natural  Deiignation.  For  as  the 
Powers  of  Letters  naturally  produce  Words  or  Sounds,  fo  the 
Figures  of  Hieroglyphics  naturally  fignify  Things  :  Either  more 
fimply,  when  they  exprefs  Siibjlances ',  or  more  artificially,  when 
they  denote  Modes  ;  yet  in  neither  Cafe  arbitrarily  :  but  by  ReprC' 
fentation  in  the  firfi:,  and  by  Analogy  in  the  laft.  Secotidly,  from 
his  not  confidering,  that  as  we  cannot  think  nor  converfe  about 
Things  either  accurately  or  intelligibly  without  Words,  fo  their 
Intervention  becomes  neceffary  in  explaining  the  Marks  of  Things. 
But  therefore,  to  make  Hieroglyphics  the  Marks  of  Sounds,  becaufe 
Sounds  accompany  Things,  would  be  as  abfurd  as  to  make  Letters 
the  Murks  of  Things,  becaufe  Things  accompany  Sounds.  And,  who 
ever  (befides  our  Author)  faid  thzx  Letters  figtiified  Things  as  well 
as  Sounds  ?  unlefs  he  had  a  Mind  to  confound  all  human  Meaning. 
If  he  chofe  to  Inftrud,  or  even  to  be  underftood,  he  would  fay, 
that  Letters  naturally  produced  Sounds  or  Words ;  and  that  Words 
arbitrarily  denoted  Things :  And  had  our  Author  fpoken  the  fame 
intelligible  Language,  and  told  us  that  Hieroglyphics  naturally  ex- 
prefled  Things,  and  that  Things  were  arbitrarily  denoted  by  Words, 
he  would  indeed  have  fpared  both  of  us  the  prefent  Trouble,  but 
then  he  had  faid  nothing  new.  But  it  is  poffible  he  might  be  led 
into  his  Conclufion  by  miflaking,  for  Egyptian,  a  ridiculous  Kind 

of 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  275 

oi  rebus-writing  more  rldiduloufly  called  Hieroglyphics,  the  feiifelcfs 
Amufement  of  our  idle  People,  in  which,  indeed,  the  Figures 
Hand  only  for  Sounds.  As  for  thofe  fignlficative  Figures  properly 
called  Hieroglyphics,  they  never  denoted  other  than  Things.  If 
there  ever  were  an  Exception,  it  was  in  a  late  Traveller  ;  whofe 
fignificative  Egyptian  Figures,  I  am  told,  are  not  fo  properly  the 
Reprefentatives  of  the  Things  themfelves,  as  of  the  Writer's  Wordsy. 
or  his  verbal  Defcriptions  to  the  Ingraver — But  there  is  no  End  of 
correding  the  Extravagancies  of  a  perverfe  Imagination.  .Here  we 
have  one,  who  is  for  making  the  Egyptian  Hieroglyphics  a  Kind  of 
Letters :  We  have  lately  heard  of  another,  Hill  more  at  Defiance 
with  common  Senfe,  who  is  for  making  the  Hcbreiv  Letters  a 
Kind  oi  Hieroglyphic  Q.\\z.xzQiQ.x%'*.  And  this  witliout  ever  having 
travelled  for  it. 

Rut 

*  See  TrDtofahfor  prhitin^  hy  Sulfn-lftion  the  Book  of  Job  in  the  Hebrew  Chara^ev,  and 
saw/r^  Decyphered  into  Englifli,  dated  July  I,  1745.  From  which,  I  fliall  beg  Leave 
to  borrow  a  Specimen  of  the  Undertaker's  Reafoning  and  Eloquence.  *'  To  obviate,"' 
fays  he,  *'  any  Scruples  of  Alarm  which  the  Appearance  of  Novelty  and  Paradox  might 

"  occafion,  it  may  be  proper  to  acquaint  the  Reader—— //-^af? that  the  new  Ver- 

"  (ion  of  Joh,  now  offered  to  the  Public,  was  made  independently  of  any  Trandatioii,. 
"  Commentator,  or  Critic, "&c.  Without  doubt  it  was  a  ready  way  to  quiet  all  Alarm;:, 
ariiing  from  the  Afpearance  of  Nai'dty,  to  tell   his  Readers,  the  Appearance  was  real. 

But  perhaps  by ohviating  any  Scruples  of  Alarm,  this  great  Linguift  might  mean,  what 

the  Words  naturally  imply,  the  freeing  his  Reader  from  any  ^r?r/;»/«  about  the  Unchari- 
tablenefs  of  being  (7/arwffl'  to  one's  Neighbours  Difcredit  withoirt  very  apparent  Caufe. 
And  if  this  were  his  Meaning,  he  has  certainly  fet  his  Reader's  Confcience  at  Eafe..  Bnt 
with  Regard  to  x\\^  Alarm  itfelf,  I  know  but  one  way  of  ftilling  #/^rt.' ;  which  is,  the 
reafonable  Profpeft  his  Reader  has  that  this,  which  is  now  a  No-vchy  and  Pa-adox,  is 
likely  to  continue  fo. 

He  goes  on "  In  the  mean  time,  if  the  fagacious  Reader  is  prompted  to  fearch. 

"^  after  Truth,  too  long  concealed   in  her  myflerious  Recefles let  him  guard  againll 

"  all  Syftematical  Notions,  and  alTume  no  other  Hypothefis  but  this,  tliat  thebeft  Senfe 
"  which  can  be  affixed  to  the  Hebrew  Letters,  confiflcntly  with  the  Context,  and  with.- 
*'  the  Laws  of  the  Character,  is  the  genuine  Senfe  of  the  Writer."'  The  Context,  doi:s 
he  fay  ?  Why,  the  Context  is  yet  to  make  ;  as  well  as  the  Sc/ife  that  is  to  be  affixed  to  thf 
HebvQV!  Letters,    And  if,  when  he  has  them  both  in  his  Hands,  he  cannot  makt-  then; 

Nn  2  ...-,e 


-.6  IIKMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

But  our  Author  fecms  to  have  been  mided  by  a  wrong  Imagina- 
tion :  that  the  Public  would  expefl  it  oi  z  Traveller  to  be  Intlmate- 
\y  convtrfant  in  all  the  old  Learning  and  Religion  of  the  Places  he 
had  vifited  :  As  it  thefe  were  to  be  picked  out  of  the  Rubbifh  of 
the  dead  Walls  in  which  they  were  once  contained,  rather  than 
from  the  living  Monuments  of  their  contemporary  Inhabitants.  But 
■fiire  the  learned  World  is  lefs  unreafonable  ;  this  would  exceed  even 
the  old  Egyp/uifi  Exaaion,  and  be  requiring  Brick,  not  indeed 
without  Sirait',  for  enough  of  tliat,  we  fee,  is  to  be  gathered  m 
rambling  through  the  Land;  but,  uhat  is  worfe,  without  Materials. 
However,  to  this  Imagination  it  appears  we  owe  his  Account  of  the 
Hiercglyph'xs  in  the  frefent,  and  of  the  Mythology  of  the  antient 
Egyptians^  in  the  preceding  Chapter  ;  which  he  introduces  in  this 

ngree,  he  muft  be  the  very  dulleft  of  all  his  bungling  Tribe.  The  Man  had  heard, 
fomcwhcrc  or  other,  of  that  trite  critical  Canon,  of  interpreting  agreeably  to  the  Context, 
which  means  only  that  the  Parts  (liould  conform  to  the  Whole,  and  to  one  another  ; 
and  the  more  oblcure  be  explained  by  the  more  intelligible  :  And  this,  he  has  innn- 
ccntly  applied  to  Parti  and  a  Whole  that  are  to  be  all  of  his  own  making  ;  which  he  may 
make  as  obfcure  at  leaft,  if  not  as  intelligible,  as  he  pleafes. 

Having  thus  ftrongly //»«<•</  himfclf  with  his  GreyGoofe  Quill,  he  at  length  takes 

his  Flight. "  Thus  prepared,"  he  fays,  "  he  will  defy  Difficulty   and  fcorn  AlTif- 

•'  tauce  ;  cflccming  an  officious  Hint  an  Affront  to  his  Genius,  or  fufpe(Sling  he  was  en- 
"  vied  the  Pleafure  of  inveftigating  the  Theorem.  Fantaftic  Glory!  fliort-lived  Plea- 
♦'  furc  '  that  muft  vanifli  into  Indignation,  for  not  having  fooner  perceived  fo  tranfparent 
"  an  Artifice."  But  here  we  leave  him.  He  now  foars  out  of  Sight,  and  becomes  in« 
fi-rutable  to  mortal  Eyes. 

Indeed,  he  might  have  pafled  without  any  Notice  at  all,  had  he  rot  betrayed  his 
Kind  when  he  attempted  to  roar.  For,  though  it  be  his  Bufinefs  to  poflefs  the  Public 
u  iih  an  high  Idea  of  the  Knowledge  he  is  about  to  open  to  them  from  the  Difcovery  of  a 
nrw  real  Cypher,  yet  he  can't,  for  his  Life  (even  in  this  very  Specimen)  forbear  to  call 
it  a  SACERDOTAL  Jargon — a  GMeriJIi  of  their  oivn.  Let  the  Priejs  then  look  to  them- 
felves.  Here  is  a  fffiu  Church-Decipherer,  who  has  not  only  difcovered  they  are  ac- 
cuftomed  to  write  in  Jargon,  but  has  alfo  found  the  Key.  We  know  them  to  be  always 
plotting  againft  the  Government  of  Nature :  The  Public  therefore  cannot  but  be  as  im- 
patient  for  their  Conviftion,  as  thh  Decipherer  is  for  the  filling  his  i'»^£T/^//o»;  Which, 
33  it  will  be  the  Means  of  fatisfyingboth,  I  would  beg  Leave  to  recommend  to  their  Con- 
fideration.    Subfcriptions  are  taken  in  by  J,  Nourfe  at  the  Lamb  without  Temple-Bar. 

extra- 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  277 

cxtrnordinary  Maimer :  "  As  the  Mythology,  or  fabulous  Religion 
"  of  the  ancient  Kgypt'ians^  may  be  looked  on,  in  a  great  Mcalure, 
"  as  the  Foundation  of  the  Heathen  Religion,  in  mofl  other  Parts ; 
*'  lb  it  may  not  be  improper  to  give  feme  Account  of  the  Origin 
"  of  it,  as  it  is  delivered  by  the  moll:  ancient  Authors,  which 
"  may  give  fome  Light  both  to  the  Defcription  of  Egypt,  and  alfo 
"  to  the  Hiftory  of  that  Country.  We  may  fuppofe,  that  the 
"  Ancients  were  the  beft  Judges  of  the  Nature  of  their  Religion  ; 
"  and  confequently,  that  all  Interpretations  of  their  Mythology, 
•'  by  Men  of  fruitful  Inventions,  that  have  no  fort  of  Foundation 
"  in  their  Writings,  are  forced,  and  fuch  as  might  never  be  in- 
*'  tended  by  them.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  neccflary  to  retrench 
<'  feveral  things  the  Ancients  themfelves  feem  to  have  invented, 
"  and  grafted  on  true  Hillory ;  and,  in  order  to  account  for  many 
"  Things,  the  Genealogies  and  Alliances  they  mention  muft  in 
"  feveral  refpefts  be  falfe  or  erroneous,  and  feem  to  have  been 
♦'  invented  to  accommodate  the  Honours  of  the  fame  Deities  to 
*'  ditierent  Perfons,  they  were  obliged  to  deify,  who  lived  at  dif- 
"  ferent  Times  ;  and  fo  they  were  obliged  to  give  them  new  Names, 
"  invent  Genealogies,  and  fome  different  Attributes  *." 

He  fays,  JVe  may  fuppofe  that  the  Ancients  were  the  beji  Judges  of 
the  Nature  of  their  Religion.  But  the  Ancients,  here  fpoken  of, 
were  not  Egyptians,  but  Greeks;  and  the  Mythology  here  fpoken  of, 
was  not  Greek,  but  Egyptian:  Therefore  thefe  Anaetits  might  well 
be  miftaken  about  the  Nature  of  a  Religion  which  they  borrowed 
from  Strangers  ;  the  Principles  of  which,  they  themfelves  tell  us, 
were  always  kept  fecreted  from  them.  But  this  is  not  all,  they  in 
fact  were  miflaken  ;  and  by  no  means-  good  Judges  of  the  Nature  of 
their  Religion,  if  we  may  believe  one  of  the  mofl:  authentic  of  thefe 
Ancients,  Herodotus  himfelf,  where  dlfcourfing  of  the  Greeks 
he  exprefsly  fays, — "  But  the  Origin  of  each  God,  and  whether 
*'  they  are  all  from  Eternity,  and  what  is  their  feveral  Kinds  or 

*  P.  221,  222. 

<'  Natures, 


i^%  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

••  Natures,  to  fpcak  tlic  Truth,  they  neither  knew  at  that  time  nor 

♦•  fincc  *. 

He  goes  on— fl//^/  coNSEQi'ENTLY  tlaf  all  Interpretations  of  their 
Mythology  by  Men  of  fruitful  Inventions,  that  have  no  fort  ofFoun- 
tiation  in  their  iFritings,  are  forced,  and  fuch  as  might  never  be  in- 
tended  by  them.  This  is  indeed  a  7rHth,  but  it  is  no  Consequence, 
therefore  impertinent.  For,  whether  the  Ancients  were,  or  were 
not,  the  bejl  Judges  ;  whether  the  Moderns  have,  or  have  not, 
fruitful  Inventions,  yet  if  their  Interpretations  have  no  fort  of  Foun- 
dation in  ancient  li''ri!ings,  it  is  certain  they  are  forced,  and  fuch  as 
night  never  be  intended  by  them.  But  what  does  he  get  by  this  hy- 
fothctical  Propofition  more  than  the  Difcredit  of  begging  his 
Queftion  ? 

But  the  moft  extraordinary,  is  his  making  it  an  additional  Rea- 
fon  for  leaving  the  Moderns,  and  flicking  to  the  Ancients,  that  the 
Ancients  themjelves  fern  to  have  invented  and  grafted  on  true  Hijiory, 
and,  in  order  (he  fays)  to  account  for  many  Things,  the  Genealogies 
and  Alliances  they  mention,  mvfi  in  feveral  refpe5ls  be  falfe  or  erro- 
neous, and  feem  to  have  been  invented,  etc.  Now,  if  the  Ancients 
were  thus  miftaken,  the  Moderns  fure  might  be  excufed  in  endea- 
vouring to  fet  them  right  :  Therefore  to  a  plain  Reafoner,  this 
wovXd^feem  to  (hew  the  vfe  oi  their  Interpretations.  But  thisUfe  is 
better  underftood  from  our  Author's  own  Example  ;  who,  in  the 
Chapter  we  are  upon,  has  attempted  to  give  us  fonrije  Knowledge  of 
Antiquity  without  them. 

And  here  we  find,  the  ancient  Account,  to  which  he  fo  clofely 
adheres,  is  not  only  fabulous,  by  his  own  Confejjion  ;  but  contra- 
didory,  by  his  own  Reprefntation  ;  a  confufed  Colleftion  of  Errors 
and  Abfurdities  ;  the  very  Condition  of  Antiquity  which  forced  the 
Moderns  to  have  Recourfe  to  Interpretations  :  and  occafioned  that 
Variety  whereon  our  Author  grounds  his  Charge  againft  them.     A 

*  'E.6i»  ii  lyiJilo  i««ro;  rut  Ocut,  iiti  i'  a.u  ha»  ■a»,1ii,  ixoToi  Ti  Tt>U  ri  I'l^ta,  ax  mtrialo  pxgt 
3  wfi'i  Tf  >C  x^'it  ii  "»»•»  hiyif.    Lib.  ii,  cap.  33. 

Charge 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  279 

Charge  however  in  which  his  Ancients  themfelvcs  will  be  involved  ; 
for  they  likewile  had  their  Inlcrpretations  ;  and  were,  if  their  Va- 
riety would  give  it  them,  at  leaft,  :izfruiiful  in  their  Inventions.  How 
differing,  for  inftance,  were  they  in  Opinion  concerning  the  Origin 
of  Animal  Worship  *  ?  Was  our  Author  ignorant  that  fo  ex- 
traordinary a  Superllition  wanted  Explanation  ?  By  no  means.  Yet 
for  fear  of  incurring  the  Cenfure  oi  z  fruitful  Invention,  he,  inftead 
of  taking  the  true  Solution  of  a  Modern  Critic  ;  or  even  any  rational 
Interpretation  t  of  the  ancient  Mythologilt,  whom  yet  he  profcflcs 

to 

*  See  Divine  Legation,  V(A.  II.  p.  46S,  &:  feq. 

t  This,  at  lead,  the  leained  Author  of  the  late  Defence  of  the  prime  Mialjlry  ofjofcph 
has  thought  it  but  decent  to  do,  p.  52^,  whom  I  juft  mention  here  becaufe  he  does  not 
fo  properly  come  within  the  Purpofe  of  this  Pamphlet.  For  as,  in  feveral  Parts  of  his  D<r. 
ftncc,  he  confents  to  me  without  Acknowledgment  ;  fo,  in  others,  he  differs  from  me 
without  Contradidion.  I  have  another  Reafon  not  to  examine  the  Grounds  of  his  Dif- 
ference, and  that  is,  becaufe  I  apprehend  he  may,  on  fecond  Thoughts,  retraft  his  Opi- 
nion on  every  of  thofe  Points,  as  he  feems  already  to  have  done  in  one  or  two.  Thus 
for  inftance,  fpeakiag  p.  522,  of  the  0;vV/«  of  Bnitc-ix.'orJI}ip,  in  Es^pt,  he  fays,  "But 
"  there  is  another  Reafon  [0/  Brute-worfyip']  affigned  by  Lucian,  that  to  me  is  the  mofl 
•»  probable  of  all.  He  tells  us  that  the  Egyptians  found  out  how  to  meafure  the  Mo- 
"  tions  of  the  heavenly  Bodies,  and  how  to  compute  Years  and  Months  and  Seafons. 
"  They  divided  that  Part  of  the  Heavens  and  the  fixed  Stars  flationed  in  it,  through 
««  which  the  moveable  Stars  and  Planets  pafs,  into  twelve  Parts,  and  reprefented  each 
"  Part  by  fome  proper  difierent  Animal  of  their  own.  And  from  hence  arofe  many  Sorts 
"  of  facred  Rites  in  Egypt,  &c."  Yet,  at  p.  458,  he  affigns  a  very  different  Original. 
"  I  think  there  is  little  doubt  but  that  the  monftrous  Figures  of  the  Egyptian  Gods, 
•'  and  great  Part  of  their  ftupid  Idolatry  and  Beatl-worfliip,  took  its  Rife  from  thefe  hk- 

"  roglyphlc  Charaaers." So  again,  p.  472,  fpeaking  of  the  Origin  of  Idolatry^  he  makes 

the  firll;  Species  of  it  to  be  Hero-worship.  "  And  I  think  (fays  he)  that  the  Account 
"  given  of  them  \the  Sons  of  the  Elohim  in  the  antediluvian  lVorld\  by  the  Hiftorian,  that 
•'  they  were  the  mighty  Men  of  old,  Men  of  the  Name,  as  the  Hebrew  exprefTes  it,  famous 
««  and  remarkable  from  ancient  Ages,  points  them  out  as  the  moft  ancient,  Gods  and  He- 
"  roes  ;  a  Suppofition  that  we  fliall  feeprefently  confirmed  by  the  Teflimony  of  profane 
*' Hi  (lory."  Yetatp.  5t5,  he  makes  the  Beginnings  of  Idolatry  to  be  the  Worfliip 
of  the  HEAVENLY  BoDiES.  "  Thefe  feveral  Accounts  put  together  clearly  fliew  us  the 
"  Rife  and  Progrefs  of  Snperilition  and  f.ilfc  Worfliip  in  the  World.     It  began,  as  it  was 

"  natural 


aSo  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
to  follow,  contents  himfelf  with  that  wr.tched  Fable  of  Typhon's 
dividing  the  WoAy  of  Ofiris  into  twenty  fix  Parts,  and  diftrlbutlng 
them  to  his  Accomplices :  Which,  being  afterwards  found  by  Ifis^ 
and  delivered  by  her  to  diftinft  Bodies  of  Priefts  to  be  buried  with 
great  Secrecy,  (he  enjoined  them  to  pay  divine  Honours  to  him,  and 
to  confecratc  fome  particular  Animal  to  his  Memory.  From  this  Jc- 
count  (lays  our  Author  very  gravely)  we  may  fee  the  Reafon  why  fo 
mamfacrcd  Animals  were  worp.ypped  in  Egypt  *.  Again,  the  Greek 
Account,  in  Diodorus,  oi Ofiris" s  Expedition,  has  been  (hewn  to  be  a 
Heap  of  impoflible  Abfurdities  ;  yet  our  Author  believes  it  all;  and 
would  have  believed  as  much  more  rather  than  have  run  into  the 
Rafhnefs  of  any  modern  Invention. — But  this  Matter  comes  under 
our  next  SeBion  ;  where  we  have  to  do  with  a  very  different  Sort  of 
Writer;  whofe  Regard,  however,  for  Antiquity  in  /'/6^/ point  is, 
we  conceive,  as  much  too  fmall  as  this  Author's  Is  too  great. 

•'  natural  to  imagine  it  flioiikl,  in  tJie  Adoration  of  the  heavenly  Luminaries,  the  Sun, 
"  Moon,  and  Stars,  who  were  fuppofed  to  prefide  over  the  Day  and  Night,  and  the  va- 
•'  rioiis  Seafons  of  the  Year,  and  to  whom  the  earliefl  Nations  were  taught  to  afcribe 
•'  the  Origin  and  Diflbiution  of  all  Things.  Next  after  thefe  the  Earth,  and  the 
"  fcveral  Elements  of  which  the  World  was  fuppofed  to  confift,  had  imaginary  Deity 
•'  afcrlbed  to  them,  and  came  in  for  their  Share  of  Adoration.  And  as  the  Glory  of  the 
"  ccleftial  Bodies,  and  the  conftant  Benefit  Men  received  by  their  Light,  Warmth,  and 
♦'  continual  Influences  on  the  Earth,  firft  imprcfled  Men  with  Wonder,  drew  them  into 
"  Adoration,  excited  their  Gratitude,  and  created  in  them  an  Imagination  of  their  be- 
"  ing  Gods;  they  were  apterwarus  led  into  an.  high  Veneration  for  their  Princes, 
"  whom  they  admired  for  their  Power,  Prudence,  Strength,  and  Knowledge  :  con- 
•'  fidering  them  as  their  Benefaftors  who  firft  taught  them  the  Ufe  of  fuch  Things 
•'  as  greatly  tended  to  the  Prefervation,  Security,  good  Order,  and  Couvenieiicies  of 
"  Life." 

•  r.  226. 


SECT. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.       281 

SECT.     III. 
See  Divine  Legation,  Book  IV.  Sed.  5. 

WHE  N  I  entered  on  a  Confutation  of  Sir  Ifaac  Newton's 
Egyptian  Chronology,  I  was  willing,  for  the  greater  Satis- 
fiiftiou  of  the  Reader,  to  fet  his  Arguments  for  the  Idcnty  of  OJiris 
and  Scfojiris,  on  which  that  Chronology  was  founded,  in  the 
ftrongeft  and  cleareft  Light.  On  this  Account  I  took  them  as  I  found 
them  coUedled,  ranged  in  Order,  and  fet  together  in  one  View, 
with  the  greatefl:  Advantage  of  Reprefentation,  by  the  very  wor- 
thy and  learned  Majler  of  the  Charter-Hmfe,  in  a  profefled  Apology 
for  that  excellent  Author.  But  this  Liberty  the  learned  Writer  hath 
been  pleafed  to  animadvert   upon  in  the  late  Latin  Edition*  of  the 

Trails  to  which  that  Apology  was  prefixed "  We  are  not  (fays 

•'  he  t  )  ignorant  of  what  has  lately  happened,  that  the  Author  of 

"  The 

*   De  verts  annis    D.    N.    Jifu    Chrlfi    natal!  &  emortuali  DlJJertatlones  dua  Chronoh- 

f  "  Non  nefcimus  miperrime  accidifle,  Tit  Vir  ingenio  &  enulitione  prredans  t,  quiim 
«'  ratus  fit  ad  Divinam  Legationem  Mofis  demonftiandiim  aliquo  modo  pertiiiere,  ut 
•*  probetur  Ofuis  non  effe  idem  cum  Sefoftri,  omnia  hue  allata  in  lufiim  jocumque  ver- 
"  terit,  inftituta  comparatione  Arthuri  illius  fabulofi  cum  Wilhelmo  Normanno,  quos 
"  sque  bonis  rationibus  in  imum  hominem  conflari  pofle  ait  (quamvis  nihil  fere  ha- 
"  beant  inter  fe  commune  aut  f.miie)  ac  nos  Ofirin  cum  Sefoftri  confundimus.  Et  de 
*'  hac  re  difputationem  in  70  paginas  &:  ultra  producit.  In  qua  tamen  haec  noftra  de  Se- 
*'  foflri  Deque  negat  neque  refeiiit,  fed  irridet.  Alia  vero  qusdam  Ntwtoni  diifta  de 
"  fero  inventis  ab  aliquo  rege  artibus,  armis,  inflrumentis  oppugnat,  et  ea  quidem  parte 
♦'  caufx  vincit.  Nam  ut  ifta  longe^ante  Sefoftris  statem  apud  i'Egyptios  reperta  fint, 
"  Scriptura  facra  jubet  credere;  ab  ullo  unquam  regum  iiiventa  eflc  haud  ita  certum. 
"  Sed  ea  prius  non   attigimus,   ut  quae   nihil  ad  propofitum  noftrum   attinent,  neque 

X  D.  Warburton  Div.  Legit.  Mofu  Dcmonft.  S;c.  Tom.  ii. 
Vol.  VI.  O  0  '«  nunc 


a82  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

*«  The  Divine  Legation  fuppofing  it,  fome  how  or  other,  to  concern 
••  Mi/ess  divine  MifTion  to  prove  that  Oftris  was  not  the  fame  with 
•«  Sefjhis,  hath  turned  all  that  is  here  faid  into  Ridicule,  by  a 
"  Comparifon  made  between  the  fabulous  Arthur  and  William  the 
•'  Norman  ;  who,  he  fiys,  may  be  made  one  by  as  good  Reafons 
"  (though  they  have  fcarce  any  thing  alike  or  in  common  with  one 
«'  another)  as  thofe  which  we  have  brought  to  confound  Ofiris  with 
"  SffoJIris :  And  on  this  Point  he  draws  out  a  Difputation  through 
*'  feventy  Pages  and  upwards  ;  wherein,  notwithftanding,  he  nei- 
♦'  ther  denies  nor  confutes,  but  only  laughs  at  what  we  have  here 
«'  faid  of  Sifojlris.  It  is  true  indeed  .that  fome  other  of  Newton  S 
"  Aflcrtions  he  does  oppofe,  as  thofe  concerning  the  late  Invention 
«'  of  Arts,  Arms,  and  Inftruments  by  fome  certain  King  ;  and  in 
"  this  Part  of  the  Argument  he  has  the  better.  P'or  that  thefe 
•'  Things  were  found  out  by  the  Egyptians  long  before  the  Age  of 
"  Sefojlri',  holy  Scripture  commands  us  to  believe  :  But  whether 
'*  found  out  by  any  of  their  Kings,  is  not  fo  certain.  However,  thefe 
"  were  Matters  we  never  touched  upon,  as  relating  nothing  to  our 
"  Purpofe ;  nor  do  they  yet  induce  us  to  recede  from  that  Conclu- 
•'  fion  of  the  famous  Newton,  That  Sefac  was  Sefojiris,  OJiris,  and 
"  Bacchus.  But  the  Caufe  being  now  brought  before  the  Public, 
"  kt  the  Learned  determine  of  it."  Thus  far  this  candid  and  in- 
genuous Writer. 

He  fays,  the  Author  of  the  Divine  Legation  [uppofes  that  it  form 
how  or  other  concerns  Mofes's  divine  Mijfwn  to  prove  Ofiris  not  the 
fame  with  Sefoftris  ;  which  feems  to  imply  that  this  learned  Perfon 
doth  not  fee  how  it  concerns  it.  And  yet  afterwards  he  owns,  that 
Scripture  (meaning  the  Writings  of  Mofes)  will  not  allow  us  to  be- 
lievcy  with  Sir  Ifaac,  that  the  Invention  of  Arts,  Arms,  and  hfiru- 
ments,  ivasfo  Lite  as  the  Time  ©/"Sefoftris.    Now  it  follows,  as  I  have 

•'  nunc  nos  movent,  ut  pedem  retrahainus  ab  ift.i  CI.  Kewtoni  conclufione  Sefacum, 
"  SefoQrim,  Ofirin  &  Bacchum  fnilTe.  Lite  jam  conteilaia  jiidicent  eruditi."  In  Dedic. 
|>.  xii.  xiii. 

fliewn, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.      283 

fliewn,  by  certain  Confequence,  that,  if  Ofirh  and  Sefojirls  wcie 
one  and  the  fame,  then  the  Invention  of  Arts  was  as  hue  as  the 
Time  of  Sefojlris,  But  this  contradiding  Scripture,  or  the  Writ- 
ings of  Mofcs,  as  the  learned  Writer  himfelf  confefleth,  the  Rea- 
der fees  how  it  concerns  Mofes's  AliJIon  to  prove  Ofiris  not  the  fame 
with  Sefoflris. 

The  learned  Writer,  fpeaking  of  the  Comparifon  I  had  made  be- 
tween Arthur  and  William  the  Norman,  fays,  they  have  fcarce  any 
thing  alike  or  in  common  with  one  another.  I  liad  brought  together 
thirteen  Circumftances  (the  very  number  the  learned  Writer  thinks 
fufficient  to  eftablifli  the  Identity  of  OJiris  and  SefoJlrisJ  m  which 
they  perfedlly  agreed.  I  am  perfuaded  he  docs  not  fufped  me 
of  falfifying  their  Hiftory.  He  muft  mean  therefore  that  thir- 
teen m  my  Comparifon,  is  fcarce  any  thing,  which,  in  his,  is  every 
thing. 

He  goes  on, — in  a  Dlfputation  of  feventy  Pages  and  upwards  the 
Author  of  the  Divine  Legation  neither  denies  nor  confutes,  but  o>ih 
laughs  at  what  we  have  faid  of  Sefoftris.  What  is  it  the  learned 
Wnter  hath  i^id  of  Sef of  ris  f  Is  it  not  this  ?  That  between  his 
Hiftory  and  that  of  O/iris  there  are  many  Strokes  of  Refemblance  : 
From  whence  he  infers  (with  Sir  Ifaac)  that  thefe  two  Heroes  were 
one  and  the  fame.  Now  if  he  means  I  have  not  denied  nor  confuted 
this  Refemblance,  he  fays  true.  I  had  no  fuch  Defign.  It  is  too 
well  marked  by  Antiquity  to  be  denied.  Neither,  let  me  add,  did 
I  laugh  at  it.  What  I  laughed  at  (if  my  bringing  a  fimilar  cafe  is  to 
be  called  by  that  Word)  was  his  Inference  from  this  Refemblance, 
that  therefore  Ofris  and  Sefofris  were  one  and  the  fame.  But  then 
too  I  did  more  than  laugh  :  1  both  denied  and  confuted  k.  Firfl;  I  de- 
nied it,  by  fhewing  that  this  Refemblance  might  really  be  though 
OJiris  and  Sefofris  were  two  different  Men,  as  appeared  by  an  equal 
Refemblance  in  the  aftions  of  two  different  Men,  Arthur  and  Wil- 
liam the  Norman.  But  as  the  general  Hiftory  of  ancient  Egypt 
would  not  fufFer  us  to  believe  all  that  the  Greek  Writers  have  faid 

O  o  2  of 


284  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
of  this  Rejhnblance,  1  then  explained  the  Caufes  that  occafionecl 
their  niiftaken  Accounts  of  the  two  perfons,  from  whence  fo  pcrfea 
a  Rcfcmblance  aroie.  Secondly,  1  confuted  \t,  by  (hewing  from  the 
concurrentTeftimony  of  Antiquity,  and  from  feveral  internal  Argu- 
ments dediicible  from  thit  Teftimony,  that  Ofins  and  Sejofiris  were 
in  ha  two  diiTerent  Perlons,  hving  in  two  very  diftant  Ages. 

The  learned  Writer  proceeds, — //  "  true  indeed  that  fame  other  of 
Nc«  ton's  Jprtiom  he  does  oppofe,  as  thofe  concerning  the  late  In-cen- 
tionoJAris,  J^rms,  end  Infruments,  and  in  this  Fart  of  the  Argu^ 
gument  he  gets  the  better.  But  if  I  have  the  better  here,  it  is  paft 
Difpute  I  overthrow  the  whole  Hypothecs  of  the  Identity  of  0 fir  is. 
and  Sejofris.  For,  as  to  that  Refemblance,  which  Antiquity  hatb 
given  them,  that^  confidered  fmgly,  when  the  pretended  late  Inven- 
tion of  Arts  hath  been  proved  a-Miftake,  will  indeed  deferve  only  tu- 
be laughed  at.  But  were  it,  as  Sir  IJaac  NeiJcton  endeavoured  to  prove,. 
that  the  Invention  of  Arts  was  no  earlier  than  the  Time  oi  Sefoflris 
or  Sefac,  there  is  then  indeed  an  end  of  the  ancient  Ofris  of  Egypt ;. 
and  He  fo  much  boafted  of  by  that  People  can  be  no  other  than  the 
Sefoflris  of  this  Author.  For  the  very  Foundation  of  the  Exiftencs 
of  the  ancient  Ofiris  was  his  civilizing  Egypt,  and  teaching  them  the 
Arts  of  Life  :  But  if  this  were  done  by  Seffiris,  or  in  his  Reign, 
then  is  He  the  true  Ofris  of  Egypt.  As  on  the  contrary,  were  the 
Invention  of  Arts  as  early  as  Scripture  Hiflory  reprefents  it,  then  is 
E§,ypi  to  be  believed,  when  fhe  tells  us  that  Ofris,  their  Inventor 
of  Arts,  was  many  Ages  earlier  than  Seffris  their  Conqueror :; 
And  confequently  all  Sir  Ifiac  Newton's  Identity  feparates  and  falls 
to  pieces.  In  a  word,  take  it  which  way  you  will,  if  Ofris 
were  the  fame  as  Sefo/iris,  then  mufl:  the  Invention  of  Arts  (for 
all  Antiquity  have  concurred  in  giving  that  Invention  to  Ofris) 
be  as  late  as  the  Age  of  Sefcfris,  the  Sefac  of  Newton :  But  this, 
Scripture  Hiftory  will  not  fufFer  us  to  believe.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  0>  is  and  Stfofris  were  not  the  fame,  then  was  the  Invention 
of  Arts  (and  for  the  fame  Reafon)  much  earlier  than  the  Age 
oi  Sejofris ;  as  indeed  all  Mankind  thought  before  Sir  Ifaac.     Thefe 

were 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         2^5 

were  the  Conliderations  whlcli  iiulucetl  that  great  Man,  who  lb 
well  uiuierftood  the  Nature  and  Force  of  EvldeiiGe,  to  employ  his- 
whole  Sagacity  of  Criticii'm  in  proving  the  Inventioivjaf  Arts  to  be 
about  the  Age  o{  his  Se/ojris  or  Se/ac.  And  Is  it  poffible  he  fliould 
I'live' a  Follower  who  cannot  ylr  that  he  hath  done  this?  or  the 
NeceJJity  he  had  of  doing  it  ?  It  will  be  fald,  perhaps,  "  that  Sir 
"  ^/^<2f  has,  indeed,  argued  much  for  the  low  Invention  of  Arts: 
"  but  hath  neither  inforced  it  under  the  Name  of  an  Argument, 
"  nor  ftated  it  in  the  Form  here  reprefented."  The  Obje£lioa 
would  ill  become  a  Follower  of  the  great  Newton,  who  Ihould 
know  that  his  Mafter's  Method,  as  well  in  thefe  his  critical  as  in 
his  phyjical  Inquiries,  was  to  form  the  principal  Members  of  his  De- 
monftration  with  an  unornamented  Brevity,  and  leave  the  Supplial 
of  the  fmall  connefting  Parts  to  his  Reader's  Capacity.  Befides,. 
in  fo  obvious,  fo  capital,  fo  neceflary  an  Argument  for  this  Identity^ 
it  had  been  a  ridiculous  Diftruft  of  common  Senfe,  after  he  had* 
fpent  fo  much  Paias  in  endeavouring  to  prove  the  low  Invention  of 
Arts,  to  have  ended  his  Reafoning  in  this  formal  Manner:  "  And* 
"  now.  Header,  take  Notice  that  this  is  a  conclulive  Argument  for 
"  the  Identity  oi  OJiris  and  Sefojlris"'  Laftly,  let  me  obferve,  that 
this  very  Reafon.  which  induced  Sir  Ifaac  to  be  fo  large  in  the  EJia- 
blifloment  of  his  Point,  the  low  Invention  of  Arts,  induced  me  to  be 
as  large  in  the  Subverfion  of  it..  And  now  fome  reafonable  Account^ 
I  hope.  Is  given  of  the  feventy  long  Pages. 

What  follows  is  flill  more  extraordinary. — However  thefe  wera 
Matters  (fays  the  learned  Writer,  I'peaking  of  the  Invention  o£ 
Arts)  we  never  touched  upon  as  relating  nothing  to  our  Purpofe.  Here 
1  cannot  but  lament  the  learned  Writer's  ill  Fortune.  There  was 
but  one  fingle  Point,  in  the  Book  he  would  defend,  which  is  eflen- 
tially  to  his  Purpofe,  and  that^  he  hath  given,  up  as  nothing  to  his 
Purpofe  ;  And  more  unlucky  flill,  on  a  Review  of  the  Argument, 
hath  treated  it  as  an  Error  in  his  Author  who  took  fo  much  Pains 
about  it,  but  yet  as  an  Error  that  does  not  at  all  affed  the  QueC- 
tion.     For, 

He 


tU  KEMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

He  concludes  thus — fior  do  they  yet  induce  me  to  recede  from  that 
Conchfion  of  the  famous  Newton,    that  Sefac  isjas  Sefoftris,  Ofirls, 

rt/id' Bacchus.' Sefac,  as  I  faid  before,  I  have  no  Concern  with. 

And  as  to  Bacchus,  it  is  agreed  to  be  only  a  different  Name  for 
Ofiris.  The  thing  I  undertook  to  prove  was  that  Oftris  and  Scfo/Iris 
were  not  one  and  the  fame  Perfon  :  But,  in  doing  this,  I  did  not 
mean  to  fav  that  Ofrls  was  not  one  of  the  Names  oi  Sefojiris.  This 
is  a  very  different  Proportion  ;  and  the  rather  to  be  taken  notice  of, 
bccaufe  I  fufpeft  a  Quibble  in  the  Words  of  the  learned  Writer 
wriich  would  confound  the  Difference,  Nor  is  this  Sufpicion  un- 
reafonable.  For  I  have  met  with  fome  who  have  even  ventured  to 
fay  that  Sir  Ifaac  meant  no  more  than  that  Sefojiris  was  AN  OJiris. 
But  if  he  meant  no  more,  I  would  allow  him  to  mean  any  thing, 
and  never  to  have  his  Meaning  difputed.  I,  for  my  part,  and  fo  I 
fuppofe  the  reft  of  the  World,  underftood  him  to  mean,  *' That 
*•  the  old  OJiris,  famous  amongft  the  Egyptians  for  Legiflation  and 
"  the  Invention  of  the  Arts  of  Life,  was  the  very  fame  Man  with 
"  Sefjlris,  who,  thofe  Egyptians  fay,  was  a  different  Man,  of  a 
"  later  Age,  and  famous  for  the  Conqueft  of  the  habitable  World." 
This  was  the  Propofition  I  undertook  to  confute.  Wherein  I  en- 
deavoured to  fhew,  "  that  there  was  a  real  OJiris,  fuch  as  ih&Egyp- 
*'  tians  reprefcnted  him,  much  earlier  than  their  Sefojiris."  And 
now  (to  ufe  this  Writer's  Words)  the  Catfe  being  brought  before  the 
Public,  let  the  Learned  determine  of  it.  As  to  the  other  Point,  that 
Sefojiris  went  by  the  Name  of  the  earlier  Hero,  this  I  not  only 
allow,  but  contend  for,  as  it  opens  to  us  one  of  the  principal  Grounds 
of  that  Confufion  in  their  Stories  which  hath  produced  a  Similitude 
of  Aftions  whereon  Sir  Ifaac  Newton  layeth  the  Foundation  of  their 
Identity. 


SECT. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         287 

SECT.     IV. 

See  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  II.  Book  VI.  Se£t.  2. 

TH  E  reverend  and  learned  Dr.  Richard  Grey  having  lately 
epitomized  the  Commentary  of  one  Albert  Schultens  on  the 
Book  of  Job,  hath  thought  fit,  in  the  Preface  to  his  Abftrad,  to 
criticife  my  Diflertation  on  the  fame  Book  in  the  following  man- 
ner.— '^Nor  fhould  we  omit,  in  the  fourth  Place,  the  Opinion  of 
•'  our  Countryman,  Mr.  Warburton,  who,  with  great  Sbarpnefs  of 
*'  Wit  and  many  Arguments  fufficiently  fpecious,  endeavours  to 
"  prove  that  the  whole  Book  of  Job  is  dramatical  and  allegorical, 
"  yet  founded  in  true  Hiflory,  and  written  :by  E/'dra  In  Solace  of 
*'  the  Jews,  now  returned  from  Babylon  into  their  own  Country, 
*'  and  about  to  experience,  conti'ary  to  their  Expeftations,  an  ordi- 
*'  nary  and  unequal  Providence.  Now  in  a  matter  very  uncertain, 
"  and  which  hitherto  hath  been  made  more  uncertain  by  the  dif-, 
*'  ferent  Opinions  of  learned  Men,  hardly  any  Hypothefis  perhaps 
**  can  be  thought  of  which  will  fatisfy  in  all   its  Parts  *."     Then 

having 

*  — Non  aiitem  prxtermittenda  eft,  quarto,  fententia  doffiffimi  viri  Warbiirtorsi 
noftri,  qui  magno  ingcnil  acuiiiiiic,  multifqiie  argtimentis,  fatis  quidcm  fpeciofis,  pro- 
b.ire  nititur,  Totum  libriim  efle  opiis  dramaticiini  &  allegoricum,  vera;  tameii  hiltori.'e 
fuperftruftum,  ab  Efdra  confcriptum,  in  folatinm  JudiEorum,  qui  e  Babylone  in  fuani 
patriam  reverfi,.  providsntiam  ordinariam  &  insqualem,  contra  atque  expedabant,  jam 
crant  experturi.  In  re  admodum  fane  incerta,  &  qua  eruditorum  hominum  diflenfione 
incertior  adhuc  reddita  eft,  vix.  uUa  forfan  hypothefis  excogitari  poflit,  qiix  ex  onini 

parte  fatisfaciat. Ut  ad  eorum  itaqiie  fententiam  accedo,    qui  libruni  Jobi  omnium 

facrorum  codicum  antiquiffimum  eife  putant  ;  ita  a  Moyfe  quidem  ex  authenticis  monu^ 

mentis  defumptum,  poeticeque  ornatum  fuiff':,  nulius  d\ibito. Atque  ex  noftra  h^c 

opinione  ratio  fatis  idonea  reddi  poteft  omnium  eorum  textuum,  fir^ui  firt,.  in  quibiis 
five  ad  legem,  five  ad  hilicriam  Judaicam  ante  fcriptum  librum,  allufum  eft,  non  minus 
acfi  ab  Efdra  eum  fcriptum  fuifle  concedatur,  de  quo  viro  diverfa  fentiunt  eruditi.  Quod 
vero  ad  eos  locos,  i^uos  ad  fequionim  temponim  hiftorias  refetre  putat  vir  doi5\iftimus, 

iicnipc 


^ii  R  E  M  A  K.  IC  S     ON     SEVERAL 

having  told  us  \\'h:it  Spanb^im  faid,  and  what  his  Author  Schultens 
iivs,  which  are  nothing  to  the  matter  in  hand,  he  goes  on  thus  : 

"  There- 

nempeail  HereVii  igiitudinem  8<  convalefceiitiam,  cap.  xxxiii.  jJ.  &  exerckus  AfTyrii 
inicrnecioneni,  cap.  xxxiv.  jo.  ita  eos  intelligi  ut  nihil  neceflc  eft,  ita  commodius  alitor 
tccipi  pofle,  ex  notii,  ad  quas  leaorem  remitto,  fatis  apparebit.  Porro,  opus  efle  dra- 
jnaticum,  feu  potius  veram  hiftoiiam  forma  dramatica,.  habitufue  poetico  exornatam, 
femper  cxiftimavi  ;  at  vero  fubefle  quoque  allegoriam,  perfuaderi  nequco,  fiqiiidem  noti 
fcriptoris  tantum  itas,  fed  &  libri  fcopus,  quantum  ego  quidem  video,  ei  fententix  ad- 
verfainr.  Kani  quod  dicit  vir  clai  iff.  id  pracipue  in  hoc  libro  difceptari,  nempe  an  bonit 
femper  bona,  malifqiie  mala,  an  utrifque  utraque  pfomifque  ob.tingant  :  banc  auteni 
auzfiionem  (a  nobis  qiiiJem  alicnam,  niinufque  ideo  pcrpenfam)  nufquam  alibi  gentium 
pixterquam  in  Judaea,  ncc  apud  ipfos  Judaps  alio  quovis  tempore,  qunm  quod  a-fllgnat, 
niovcri  potuiffe,  id  omne  ex  vcritate  fua:  hypothefeos  pendet,  et  mea  quidem  fententia, 
longc  aliter  fe  habet.  Nempc  id  unum  voluiiTe  mihi  videtur  facer  fcriptor,  ut  piis  om- 
nibus, Htcunque  afRiflis,  vhiimilitatis  8:  patientia;  pcrpelunm  extaret  documentum  ex 
contemplatione  gemina,  bine  infinitas  Dei  perfeftionis,  fapientia:  ac  potentias  ;  illinc 
liumani,  qui  in  fandillimis  quoque  viris  inert,  corruptionis,  imbecillitatis,  tc  iguoran- 
t\x.  Quamvis  enim  in  fcrmonibus,  qui  in  eo  habentur,  de  rel'gione,  de  virtute,  de 
providcntia,  Deiquc  in  mundo  gubernanc'o  fapientia,  juflitia,  fanftitate,  de  uno  rerum 
•omnium  principio,  aliifque  giaviflimis  veritatibus  diffcrtetur,  hunc  tamen  quern  c'ixi 
tinicum  tffe  libri  fcop\im,  tarn  ex  initio  &  fine,  quam  ex  univerfa  ejus  teconomia  cuivis 
opinor  manifeftum  erit.  Ea  enim,  ut  rem  omnem  fummatim  conipleftar,  Jobum  exhi- 
bct,  primo  quidem  querentem,  expoftulantera,  eftVa-ni  luftui  indulgentcm  ;  mox  (quum, 
ut  facri  dramatis  natura  poftulabat,  amicorum  contradiflione  finiftrifque  fufpicionibus 
niagis  magifcjuc  initatus  &  lacelfitus  effct)  imprudentiiis  Deum  provocantem,  atque  in 
jultiiia  fua  gloriantem  ;  ad  debitam  tandem  fummiffionem  fuique  cognitionem  revocatum, 
lum  dcmum,  nee  an  tea,  integritatis  fua:  tarn  pixmium,  quam  tellimonium  a  Deo  re- 
portantera.  Ex  his,  inquam,  apparet,  non  primario  agi  in  hoc  libro  de  providentia, 
five  iquali,  five  injequali,  fed  de  pcrfonali  Jobi  integritate.  Hanc  enim  (quod  oinnino 
obfervandum  eft)  in  dubium  vocaverant  amici,  non  ideo  tantum  quod  affliaus  effef,  fed 
quod  affli£^.us  impaticntius  fe  gereret,  Deique  juftitiae  obmurmuraret :  &  qui  ftrenuus 
videlicet  aliorum  hortator  fuerat  ad  fortitudinem  &  conftantiam,  quum  ipfe  tentaretur, 
viftus  labafceret.  Quum  accefferat  fandliflimi  viri  malis  hxc  gravirtima  omnium  tentatio, 
ut  tanquam  improbus  ii.  hypocrita  ab  amicis  damnaretur,  &  quod  unicum  ei  fupererat, 
confcientii  fua:  ttftinionio  ac  folatio,  quantum  ipfi  potuerunt,  privandus  foret,  quid 
mifuro  faciendum  crat  ?  Amicos  perfidii  &  crudelitatis  arguit :  Deum  integritatis  fux 
leftem  vindiccmriue  appcllat  :  quum  autem  nee  Deus  interveniret,  ad  innocentiam  ejus 
*indicandam,  nee  remittercnt  quicquam  amici  de  acerbis  fuis  cenfuris,  injuftifque  criini- 

natiouibus, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  2S9 

"  Therefore  as  I  am  of  their  Ophiion  who  think  the  Book  of  Job 
*'  tlie  oldefl:  in  the  Canon,  (o  I  am  fully  perfuaded  that  it  was  writ- 
"  ten  by  Mofes  himfelf,  who  took  it  from  authentic  Records,  and 

*'  put  it  into  the  Drefs  of  Poetry. And,  on  this  our  Opinion, 

*'  a  good  Account  may  be  given  of  all  thofe  Texts,  if  any  fuch 
•*  there  be,  wherein  Allufion  is  made  to  the  Jewifli  Law  or  Hiflory 
"  before  the  Book  was  written,  no  lefs  than  if  we  fhould  allow  it 
"  to  have  been  written  by  Efdras,  of  whom  the  Learned  think 
*'  differently.  And  as  to  thofe  Places  which,  in  the  Opinion  of 
*'  the  Author  of  The  Divide  Legation,  refer  to  Hiftories  of  later 
*'  Times,  fuch  as  the  Sicknefs  and  Recovery  of  Hezekiah,  cap. 
*'  xxxiii.  25.  and  the  Deftrudion  of  the  vf/7>'^'^"  ^""'""J'  ^^P-  xxxiv. 
"  20.  it  will  fufficiently  appear  by  the  Notes,  to  which  I  refer 
"  the  Reader,  that  there  is  no  need  to  underftand  them  in  this 
*'  Senfe,  and  that  they  are  more  commodioufly  underftood  other- 
"  wife.  Further,  that  the  Work  is  dramatical,  or,  to  fpeak  more 
*'  properly,  a  true  Hiflory  in  the  Form  of  a  Drama,  and  adorned 
*'  with  a  poetic  Drefs,  was  always  my  Opinion  :  But  that  any 
"  Allegory  lies  under  it  I  can  by  no  means  perfuade  myfelf  to  be- 
♦'  lieve ;  becaufe  not  only  the  Age  of  the  Writer,  but  the  very 

nationibus,  ad  fupremum  iMud  judicium  provocat  in  quo  redemptorem  fibi  afFutunim, 
Deumque  a  fuis  partibus  ftaturum,  fumm.i  cum  fiducia  Ce  noviffe  affirmat.  Jam  vero  fi 
cardo  controverfis  fuiflet,  utrum,  falva  Dei  juftitia,  fanfli  in  hac  vita  adfligi  poflent, 
hasc  ipfa  declaratio  litem  finire  debuerat.  Sin  autem  de  perfoiiali  Jobi  innocentia  dif- 
ceptetur,  nil  mirum  quod  veterem  canere  cantilenam,  Jobumque  ut  fecerant,  condem- 
nare  pergerent  focii,  quum  Dei  folius  erat,  qui  corda  hominum  explorat,  pro  certo 
fcire,  an  jure  merito  fibi  Jobus  hoc  folamen  attribueret,  an  falfam  fibi  fiduciam  vanus 
arrogaret.  Hac  igitur  difficultate  fublata,  riempe  cur  non  ftatim  obmutuerunt  amici, 
quum  de  futuro  jiidicio  tarn  folenniter  magnificeque  dixiflet  Jobus,  nil  obftat  quo  minus 
celebrem  ilium  contextum  cap.  xix.  non  de  teniporali  in  integrum  rcftitutione,  fed  de  re- 
furreftloae  ad  vitam  seternam,  intelligere  poffis.  Quod  fi  argumentis  a  commcntatore 
noftro  allatis,  ea  quoque  adjecciis  qux  vir  omni  laude  major,  jam  epifcopus  Sarifburien- 
fis,  in  differtatione  fua,  Dc  fcntentia  veterum  tie  circumflanliis  is"  confeqiicntiii  lapfus  huniani 
pulcherrime  contexuit,  nil  ultra,  credo,  defideraris,  vel  ad  libri  aiuiquitatem,  vel  ad 
YexatilTimi  hujus  loci  fenfum,  confirmsndum.  Prof,  p,  x — xv. 

Vol.  VI.  P  p  •*  Scope 


,po  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

*'  Scope  of  the  Book  (as  far  as  I  can  fee)  leads  us  to  conclude  other- 
•«  wile.  For  as  to  what  this  Writer  fays,  that  the  main  Queftioii 
"  handled  in  the  Book  oi  Job  is  whether  Good  happens  to  the  Good, 
*'  and  Evil  to  evil  Men,  or  whether  both  happen  not  proinifcu- 
««  ouUy  to  both  :  and  that  this  Queftion  (a  very  foreign  one  to  us, 
"  and  therefore  the  lefs  attended  to)  could  never  be  the  Subjed  of 
•'  Difputation  any  where  but  in  the  Land  of  J.udcea^  nor  there 
««  neither  at  any  other  time  than  that  which  he  afligns  :  All  this, 
♦  '  1  fay,  depends  on  the  Truth  of  his  Hypothefis;  and  is,  in  my 
«'  Opinion,  far  otherwife.  For  the  fole  Puipofe  of  the  facred  Wri- 
«'  ter  feems  to  me  to  be  this,  to  compofe  a  Work  that  fhould  re- 
"  main  a  perpetual  Document  of  Humility  and  Patience  to  all  good 
"  Men  in  Afflidion,  from  this  two-fold  Conhderation,  as  on  the 
••  one  hand,  of  the  infinite  Perfc6tion,  Power,  and  Wifdom  of 
*'  God ;  fo  on  the  other  of  human  Corruption,  Imbecillity,  and 
•*  Ignorance,  difcoverable  even  in  the  beft  of  Men.  For  although. 
•♦  in  the  Speeches  that  occur  there  be  much  Talk  of  Religion, 
*'  Virtue,  and  Providence;  of  God's  Wifdom,  Juftice,  and  Holi- 
"  nefs,  in  the  Government  of  the  World;  of  one  Principle  of  all 
"  things,  and  other  mod  important  Truths ;  yet  that  this,  which 
*'  1  have  afligned,  is  the  only  Scope  of  the  Book,  will  appear  mani- 
"  fcft  to  every  one,  as  well  from  the  beginning  and  the  end,  as  from 
•*  the  Oeconomy  of  the  whole.  For  to  fay  all  in  a  word,  it  firft 
"  prefents  "job  complaining,  expoflulating,  and  indulging  himfelf 
"  in  an  ungovernable  Grief,  but  foon  after  (when,  as  the  Nature 
♦«  of  the  facred  Drama  required,  by  the  Contradidion  of  his  Friends 
"  and  their  finifter  Sufpiclons  he  became  more  and  more  teized  and 
"  irritated)  rafhly  challenging  God,  and  glorying  in  his  own  In- 
♦♦tegrity;  yet  at  length  brought  back  to  a  due  Submifhon  and 
♦*  Knowledge  of  himfelf;  and  then,  at  laft,  and  not  before,  re- 
♦'  celving  from  God  botti  the  Reward  and  Teflimony  of  his  Up- 
«  rightnefs.  From  all  this,  I  fay,  it  appears  that  the  perfonal  In- 
♦♦  tegrity  of  'Job,  and  not  the  Queftion  concerning  an  equal  or  un- 
«'  equal  Providence,  is  the  principal  Subjeft  of  the  Book.     For  that 

"  it 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  291 

"  it  was  (and  there  our  Attention  (hould  be  fixed),  which  his 
«'  Friends  doubted  of;  not  fo  much  on  account  of  his  Afflid^ion,  as 
"  for  the  not  bearing  his  AfBiftion  with  Patience,  but  complaining 
*'  of  the  Jiiftice  of  God.  And  that  he  who  was  an  able  Advikr  of 
*'  others  to  Fortitude  and  Conftancy,  (hould,  when  his  own  Trial 
**  came,  fink  under  the  Stroke  of  his  Difafters.  Sec  cap.  iv.  ver.i  2.34. 
*'  Now  when  the  moft  grievous  Trial  of  all  was  added  to  the  other 
*'  Evils  of  this  holy  Perfon,  to  be  condemned  by  his  Friends  as  a 
*'  Profligate  and  a  Hypocrite,  and  to  be  deprived,  as  much  as  in 
*'  them  lay,  of  his  only  remaining  Support,  the  Teflimony  of  a 
"  good  Confcience,  what  was  left  for  the  unhappy  Man  to  do  ?  He 
*'  accufes  his  Friends  of  Perfidy  and  Cruelty ;  he  calls  upon  God 
*'  as  the  Witnefs  and  Avenger  of  his  Integrity  :  But  when  neither 
"  God  interpofed  to  vindicate  his  Innocence,  nor  his  Friends  forbore 
*'  to  urge  their  harfh  Cenfures  and  unjufl:  Accufations,  he  appeals 
"  to  that  lafl:  Judgment  in  v\'hich,  with  the  utmofl  Confidence,  he 
*'  affirms  that  he  knew,  his  Redeemer  would  be  prefent  to  him, 
"and  that  God  would  declare  in  his  Favour.  But  now,  if  the 
*'  Hinge  of  the  Controverfy  had  turned  on  this,  Whether  or  no, 
*'  confidently  with  God's  Juflice,  good  Men  could  be  afflifted  in 
*'  this  Life,  this  Declaration  ought  to  have  finiftied  the  Debate : 
*' But  if  the  Queftion  were  concerning  the  perfonal  Innocence  of 
*'  Job,  it  was  no  Wonder  that  they  ftill  fung  their  old  Song,  and 
*'  went  on  as  they  had  begun,  to  condemn  their  old  afflifted  Friend, 
*'  fince  it  was  in  the  Power  of  God  alone  to  explore  the  Hearts  of 
*'  Men,  and  to  know  for  certain  whether  it  was  Job^s  Piety  that 
"  rightly  applied  a  Confolation,  or  whether  it  was  his  Vanity  that 
"  arrogated  a  falfe  Confidence  to  himfelf. 

*'  This  Difficulty  therefore  being  removed,  namely,  why  his 
**  Friends  were  not  immediately  put  to  Silence  when  Job  had  fo 
*«  folemnly  and  magnificently  talked  of  a  future  Judgment,  nothing 
"  hinders  us  from  applying  that  celebrated  Text  cap.  xix.  not  to  a 
"  temporal  Reffitution  to  his  former  Condition,  but  to  a  Refur- 
♦'  reftion  to  eternal  Life.  But  if,  to  the  Arguments  brought  by  our 
P  p  2  "  Com- 


,91  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

*♦  Commentator,  you  add  alfo  thofe,  which  a  Writer  above  all 
•♦  praifc,  the  piefe'nt  Bifliop  of  Snrtwu  hath  moft  beautifully  inter- 
«'  woven  in  his  Difllrtation  on  the  Opinion  of  the  Ancients  concenmg 
••  the  Circunifances  and  Confequences  of  the  Lapfe  of  Mankind,  I  be- 
*•  lieve  you  will  want  nothing  to  confirm  you  in  the  Opinion  of 
"  the  Antiquity  of  the  Book,  and  my  Senfe  of  this  moft  perplexed 
♦'  Pafliige."  Thus  tar  the  very  candid  and  learned  Writer  ;  who 
will  not  be  difplcafcd  with  me  for  examining  the  Reafons  he  hath 
hereoflcred  againft  my  Explanation  of  the  Book  olfob. 

He  begins  with  faying,  that  I  have  by  many  A'-gtnnents  fuficienily 
fpccious,  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  whole  Book  of  Job  is  dramatical 
and  alLgoricaU  yet  founded  in  true  Hfory,  atid  written  3)/ Efdra  in 
Solace  ofiheJe%vs,  &c.  And  then  immediately  fubjoins,  Now  in  a 
Matter  very  uncertain,  and  nchich  hitherto  hath  been  made  more  un- 
certain by  the  different  Opinions  of  learned  Men,  hardly  any  Hypothefs 
can  be  thought  ofwlmh  will  fat  isfy  in  all  its  Parts.  Let  us  attend  to 
the  opening  of  his  Caufe.  I.  He  owns  my  Hypothefs  to  be  fuffici- 
enilyfpecious,  and  yet  calls  the  Subjedl,  which  this  Hypothefs  ex- 
plains, z  Matter  very  uncertain;  nay,  mruERro  rendered  more  un^ 
certain — By  what  ?  why,  if  you  will  believe  himfelf,  by  many  Ar'- 
gumcnts  fufficiently  fpecious  ;  for  this  is  the  Charafter  he  is  pleafed  to 
give  of  thefe  of  mine,  which  fill  up  tl>c  Meafure  of- thofe  different 
Opinions,  from  whence  fo  great  Uncertainty  is  accumulated.  2.  He 
fays  that  in  an  uncertain  Matter  fcarce  any  Hypothefs  can  fatisfy. 
Now,  though  this  be  a  common-place  Thought,  it  is  neverthelefs 
a  very  falfe  one.  For  it  is  only  in  uncertain  Matters  that  Hypothe- 
fs s  are  invented,  to  be  applied,  to  account  for  the  Appearances  of 
Things :  And  fure  it  is  not  of  the  Nature  of  an  Hypothefis  to  be 
unfatisfa5iory  ?  3,  It  is  equally  falfe  that  an  uncertain  Matter  is, 
otherwife  than  by  Accident,  rendered  more  uncertain  by  Diverfty  of 
Opinions.  For  the  greater  the  Diverfity  is,  the  greater  is  the  Chance 
of  coming  to  the  Truth  :  As  the  more  Boads  Men  take  in  an  un- 
certain Way,  the  greater  the  Likelihood  of  finding  out  the  Right. 
4.  It  is  not  required  in   z  fatisfa£lory  Hypothefis  that  it  fhould/?- 

tisfy 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  293 

thfy  in  all  its  Parts :  For  then  the  greatefl:  and  moft  momentous 
Truths  would  never  be  acquiclced  in,  fince  lome  of  the  fundamen- 
tal Points  of  Rehgion,  natural  and  revealed,  do  not  faiisfy  in  all 
their  Parts  ;  there  being  inexplicable  Objections  even  to  demonftra- 
five  Propofitions.  5.  But  what  is  ftrangefl:  of  all,  though  he  fays 
hardly  any  Hypotbcjis  can  be  thougbt  of  which  will  falisfy  in  all  its 
Paris  ;  yet,  before  he  comes  to  the  end  of  his  Paragraph,  he  has 
found  one  that  does/dtisjy  :  and,  ftranger  ftill,  it  is  the  comrion  one, 
whole  Incapacity  of  giving  SatisfaSiion  was  the  Reafon-  for  the 
Critics  excogitating  fy  many  different  ones.  However,  in  this  Hy- 
pothefis  he  refts,  like  a  prudent  Man  as  he  is.  Therefore  (fays  he) 
as  I  am  of  their  Opinion  who  think  the  Book  of  Job  the  oldrfl  in  the 
Canon,  fo  I  am  fully  perfuaded  that  it  was  written  by  Mofes  himfelf 
who  took  it  from  authentic  Records,  and  put  it  into  the  Drefs  of  Poetry, 
Indeed,  to  make  Way  through  fo  much  Doubt  and  Uncertainty,  to 
an  Opinion  he  may  find  his  Account  in,  he  has  kept  a  Wicket  open 
by  the  Infertion  of  the  Particle  vix  j  vix  ullaforfan  Hypotbcfs — but 
this  will  fcarce  ferve  his  Purpofe  ;  For  the  Reafons  why  hardly  any 
Hypothefu  canfdtisfy  extend  as  well  to  that  he  lias  given  as  to  thofe 
he  has  rejefted  :  unlefs  he  will  fuppofe  the  reft  to  be  difcredired 
by  difienting  from  that,  and  not  that  from  the  reft  :  which  perhaps 
after  all  may  be  his  Thought. 

He  proceeds — And  on  this  our  Opinion  a  good  Account  may  be  given 
of  all  thofe  Texts,  if  any  fuch  there  be,  wherein  Allufion  is  made  to  the 
ftwifh  Law  or  Hiflory  before  the  Bock  was.  written,  no  lefs  than  if 
laefjould  allow  it  to  have  been  written  by  Efdra,  of  whom  the  Learned 
think  differently.  Now,  not  to  infift  upon  this,  that  the  common 
Uypothefis,  here  followed,  which  makes  Af^y^J  the  Author,  fuppofcs 
him  to  have  wrote  it  before  his  Million  ;  and  confequently,  before 
the  Jewiff  Law  and  Affairs,,  alluded  to,  weregiven  and  tranfaded  : 
Not,  I  fay,  to  infill  on  this,  though  no  probable  Reafon  can  be 
affigned  for  Mofes  s  Writing  fuch  a  Work  but  for  the  People  ia 
Captivity  ;  I  will  readily  allow  that  Mofes  might  write  any  Thing 
that  happened  to  him  or  his  People,  in  or  before  his  Adminiflration, 


294  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
as  eafily  as  EfJra  could  do.  I3ut  the  Queftlon  is,  which  of  the  two 
13  raoli  likely  to  have  done  lb.  Our  Author  grants  this  to  be  a 
Work  of  Imitation,  or  of  the  dramatic  Kind  ;  in  which  the  Man- 
ners and  Adventures  of  the  Perfons  a£ling  are  to  be  reprefented. 
Now  could  Mofcs  niiflake,  or,  in  fuch  a  Work,  give  without  mif- 
taking,  the  Hlftory  of  his  own  Time  for  the  Hiftory  of  Job" s  ?  that 
is,  make  Jcb  fpeak  of  the  Egyptian  Darknefs,  or  the  Paflage  of  tiie 
Red  Sea  ?  Adventures  of  the  Writer's  own  atchieviiig.  Efdra  in- 
deed either  way  might  well  do  this,  as  he  lived  fo  many  Ages  after 
the  Fadts  in  Queftion.  Could  Euripides,  for  Example,  have  been 
io  abfurd  as  to  make  Orejlcs  and  Clyi^mnejlra  fpeak  of  his  ozm 
Time  or  Actions  ?  Though  he  might,  without  much  Abfurdity, 
have  made  them  mix  the  Manners,  or  allude  to  fome  Adventures 
of  the  Time  of  Draco.  But  our  Author's  Caution  deferves  Com- 
mendation ;  if  (fays  he)  tbcre  be  any  fuch  :  The  Ufe  of  this  is 
evident,  that  if  his  own  Solution  will  not  hold,  he  may  be  at 
Liberty  to  deny  the  Thing  itfelf.  But  what  he  means,  by  ob- 
ferving  it,  in  DIfcredit  of  E/Jra's  Claim,  that  Learned  Men  think 
differently  of  him,  as  if  they  did  not  think  differently  of  Mofes  too, 
is,  I  confefs,  not  lb  evident. 

He  goes  on — And  as  to  thofe  Places,  which  in  the  Opinion  of  the 
Author  of  the  D.  L.  refer  to  Hifiories  of  later  Times,  fuch  as  the 
Sicknefs  and  Recovery  of  Hezekiah,  chap,  xxxiii.  ver.  25.  and  the 
Deflru5licn  of  the  Aflyrian  Army,  chap,  xxxiv.  ver  20.  it  will  fuffi^ 
ciently  appear,  by  the  Notes  to  which  I  refer  the  Reader,  that  there 
is  no  needlo  underfiand  them  in  this  Senfe,  and  that  they  are  more  commo- 
dioufy  underftood  otherwife.  On  this  Point  I  agree  to  join  Iffue  with 
him,  and  to  refer  myfelf  to  the  Judgment  of  the  Public. 

Further,  (fays  he)  that  the  Work  is  dramatical,  or,  to  fpeak  more 
properly,  a  true  Hifiory  in  the  Form  of  a  Drama,  and  adorned  with  a 
poatical  Drefs,  was  always  my  Opinion :  but  that  any  Allegory  lies 
under  it,  I  can  by  no  Means  perfuadc  myfelf  to  believe  ;  becaufe  not  only 
the  Age  of  the  Writer,  but  the  very  Scope  of  the  Book  fas  fir  as  lean 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  295- 

fee)  leads  us  to  conclude  otherioifc.  As  to  the  Scope  of  the  Booky  we 
Ihall  examine  that  Matter  by  and  by  r  But  his  other  Argument, 
from  the  yige  of  the  Writer,  deferves  no  Examination  at  all,  as  it  is 
a  downright  begging  the  Qiieftion  ;  which  is  concerning  the  Writer 
and  his  hge.  Now  thefe,  by  reafon  of  the  Writer's  Silence,  being 
uncertain^  muft  be  determined  by  the  Subje6l  and  Circumftances. 
of  the  Work,  which  are  certain:  For  our  Author,  therefore,  ta 
dilprove  a  Circumftance,  brought  to  determine  the  Queftion,  by  an 
Argument  in  which  the  Queftion  is  taken  for  granted,  I  (hould 
think  unfair,  were  it  not  become  the  autliorized  Logick  of  all  thofe 
W  riters  who  give  their  own  Opinions  for  Principles.  It  refls  then 
at  laft,  we  fee,  in  his  Belief  ^nd  Perfuafon:  And  this  is  always  re- 
gulated on  the  Belief  and  Perfuafion  of  thofe  who  went  before. 
Thus  he  believes  the  Book  to  be  dramatical.,  becaufe  others  have  be- 
lieved fo  too  :  Pie  beheves  it  not  to  be  allegorical,  becaufe  he  could 
find  no  other  in  that  Belief  before  the  Avitlior  of  the  D.  L. — 
But  let  us  now  hear  what  he  has  to  fay  concerning  the  Scope  of  the- 
Book. 

For  as  to  ivhat  this  Writer  [the  Author  of  the  D.  L.]  fysy 
that  the  main  ^eflion  bandied  in  the  Book  of  ^oh  is  whether  Good 
happens  to  the  Good,  and  Evil  to  evil  Men^  or  whether  both  happen 
not  prcmifcuotifly  to  both  ;  and  that  this  Sluefion  (a  very  foreign  one 
to  us,  and  therefore  the  lefs  attended  to)  could  }zever  be  the  Sub]c£l  of 
Difputation  any  where  but  in  the  Land  0/' Judaea,  tior  there  neither  at 
any  other  time  than  that  which  he  afjigns  \  all  this,  I  fay,  depends  on 
the  Truth  rf  his  Eypothefs,  and  is,  in  my  Opinion,  far  otherwife^ 
That  which  depends  on  the  Truth  of  an  Hypoihefs  has,  indeed,  ge- 
nerally fpeaking,  a  very  (lender  Foundation  :  And  I  am  partly  of 
Opinion  it  was  the  common  Prejudice  againft  this  Support  that  in- 
clined our  Author  to  give  my  Notions  no  better.  But  he  fliould 
have  been  a  little  i-nore  careful  in  timing  his  Obfervation  :  For,  as  it 
happens,  what  I  have  (hewn  to  be  the  Subjcft  of  the  Book  is  fo  far 
from  depending  on  the  Truth,  of  my  Hypothefis,  that  the  Truth 

of 


296  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
of  my  Hypochefis  depends  on  what  I  have  fliewn  to  be  the  Subjeft 
of  the  Book  ;  and  very  fitly  fo,  as  every  reajonable  Hypothefis  Oiould 
be  fupported  on  Fa£i.  Now  I  appeal  to  the  whole  learned  World, 
whether  it  be  not  as  clear  a  Facl  that  the  Subject  of  the  Book  of 
Jjb  is  whether  Good  happens  to  the  Good,  and  Evil  to  evil  Men,  or 
•whether  both  happen  not  prom ijcuoujly  to  both  ;  as  that  the  Subjedl  of 
the  firft  Book  of  Tufculan  Dijputations  is  de  contemnenda  morte.  On 
this  I  cftabliflied  my  Hypothefis,  that  the  Book  of  Job  muf>  have 
been  written  about  the  Time  of  Ejdra,  becaufe  no  other  affignable 
Time  can  be  fuited  to  the  Subjeft.— But  'tis  poffible  I  may  miftake 
what  he  calls  my  Hypothefis  :  For  aught  I  know  he  may  underftand 
not  that  of  the  Book  of  Job,  but  that  of  the  Book  of  the  Divine  Le- 
gat  ion.  And  then,  by  /ny  Hypothefis,  he  muft  mean  the  great  reli- 
gious Principle  I  endeavour  to  evince,  that  the  Jews  were  in 
Reality  under  an  extraordinary  Providence.  But  it  will 
be  paying  me  a  very  unufual  Compliment  to  call  that  my  Hypo- 
thefis vi^hich  the  Bible  was  written  to  tefti fy ;  which  all  Chriftians 
profefs  to  believe  ;  and  which  none  but  Infidels  direSily  deny.  How- 
ever, if  this  be  the  Hypothefis  he  means,  I  need  defire  no  better  a 
Support.  But  the  Truth  is,  my  Interpretation  of  the  Book  of  Job 
feeks  Support  from  nothing  but  thofe  common  Rules  of  Grammar 
and  Logic  on  which  the  Senfe  of  all  kind  of  Writings  are  or  ought 
to  be  interpreted. 

He  goes  on  in  this  Manner.  For  the  sole  Purpofe  of  the  facred 
Writer  feems  to  me  to  be  this,  to  compofe  a  Work  that  fould  remain  a 
perpetual  Document  of  Humility  and  Patience  to  all  good  Men  in  Afflic- 
tion from  this  two-fold  Confideration,  as  on  the  one  hand  of  the  infinite 
Perfeilion,  Power,  and  Wifdom  of  God ;  fo  on  the  other,  of  human 
Corruption,  Imbeciltity,  and  Ignorance,  df cover  able  even  in  the  befi  of 
Men.  Such  Talk  in  a  Sermon  to  hisParifh  for  the  fake  of  a  moral 
Application,  might  be  right :  But  to  fpeak  thus  to  the  learned  World, 
is  furely  out  of  Seafon.  The  Critic  will  be  apt  to  tell  him  he  has  mif- 
taken  the  A6ior  for  the  SubjeSl,  and  might  on  the  fame  principle  as 

well 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  297 

well  conclude  that  the  purpofe  of  Virgil's  Poem  is  not  the  EftabHO-i- 
ment  of  an  Empire  in  Italy,  but  the  perfonal  Piety  o(  /Eneas.  But 
to  be  a  little  more  explicitc,  as  the  peculiar  Nature  of  this  Work 
demands.  The  Book  of  Jol^  confifts  of  two  diftinft  Parts ;  the 
Narrative,  contained  in  the  Prologue  and  Epilogue  ;  and  the  ylr- 
gumcntative,  which  compofes  the  Body  of  tlie  Work.  Now  when 
the  Queflion  is  of  the  Subjedl  of  a  Book,  who  means  other  than  tlie 
Body  of  it  ?  Yet  here  our  Author,  by  a  flrange  Fatality,  miflak- 
ing  the  narrative  Part  for  the  argumentative,  gives  us  the  Subjed  of 
the  Introdudlion  and  Conclufion  for  that  of  the  Work  itfelf.  And 
it  Is  very  true  that  the  beginning  and  the  end  do  exhibit  a  perpetual 
iDocument  of  Humility  and  Patience  to  all  good  Men  in  AffiiSlion.  But 
it  is  as  true  that  the  Body  of  the  Work  neither  docs  nor  could  ex- 
hibit  any  fuch  Document.  Firft  it  does  not ;  for,  that  Humility 
and  Patience,  which  Job  manifefts  before  his  entering  into  Difpute, 
is  fucceeded  by  Rage  and  Oftentation  when  he  becomes  heated  with 
iinreafonable  Oppofition.  Secondly,  it  could  7iot ;  becaufe  it  is  alto- 
gether argumentative  ;  the  Subje£l  of  which  muft  neceflarily  be  a 
Propojition  debated,  and  not  a  Document  exemplihed.  A  Precept 
may  be  conveyed  in  Hiflory,  but  a  Difputation  can  exhibit  only  a 
debated  ^efiion.  I  have  fliewn  what  that  ^ejiion  is ;  and  he,  in- 
flead  of  proving  that  I  have  afligned  a  wrong  one,  goes  about  to 
perfuade  the  Reader,  that  there  is  no  Queftion  at  all. 

He  proceeds.  For  although  in  the  Speeches  that  occur  there  be  much 
Talk  of  Religion,  Virtue,  and  Providence,  of  God''s  IVifdom,  Ju/lice, 
and  Holinefs  in  the  Government  of  the  World,  of  one  Principle  of  all 
things,  and  other  mojl  important  Truths,  yet  that  this  which  I  have 
afjigned  is  the  only  Scol)e  of  the  Book  ivill  appear  manifeji  to  every  one^ 
as  well  from  the  Beginning  and  the  End  as  from  the  Oeconomy  of  the 
whole.  For  to  fay  all  in  a  word,  itfrfprefcnts  Job  complaining,  ex' 
tof  dating,  and  indulging  himfelf  in  an  img'jvernable  Grief',  but  foon 
after  (when  as  the  Nature  of  the  facred  Drama  required,  by  the  Con~ 
tradiclion  of  his  Friends,  and  their  finifer  Sifpicions,  be  became  more 

Vol.  VI.  Q  q  and 


apS  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

and  more  tcized  and  irritated)  rapy  challenging  God,  a  fid  glorying  in 
bis  oivn  Integrity  :  vet  at  length  brought  back  to  a  due  Subwijion  and 
KncLvUdge  oj  himfelf.  The  Reader  now  fees  that  all  this  Is  juft  as 
pertinent^  as  if  I  (hould  fay,  Mr.  ChiUingworth's  famous  Book  aga'mft 
Knot  was  not  to  prove  the  Religion  of  Protefants  afafe  way  to  Sol- 
vation, but  to  give  the  Piaure  of  an  artful  Cavller  and  a  candid 
Difputer.  For,  although,  in  the  Arguments  that  occur,  there  be 
much  Talk  of  Proteftantifm,  Popery,  Infallibility,  aJudgeofCon- 
froverfies.  Fundamentals  of  Faith,  and  other  moft  important  Mat- 
ters, yet  that  this  which  I  have  affigned  is  the  only  Scope  of  the 
Book,  will  appear  manifeft  to  every  one,  as  well  from  the  be- 
ginning and  the  end,  as  from  the  Oeconomy  of  the  whole.  For  it 
firft  of  all  prefents  the  Sophift  quibbling,  chicaning,  and  indulging 
himfelf  in  all  the  imaginable  Methods  of  falfe  Reafoning :  And 
foon  after,  as  the  Courfe  of  Difputation  required,  refting  on  his 
own  Authority,  and  loading  his  Adverfary  with  perfonal  Calum- 
nies ;  yet  at  length,  by  the  Force  of  Truth  and  good  Logic,  brought 
back  to  the  Point,  confuted,  expofed,  and  put  to  filence.  Now  if 
]  fhould  fay  this  of  the  Book  of  Chi/lingworth,  would  it  not  be  as 
true,  and  as  much  to  the  Purpofe,  as  what  our  Author  hath  faid  of 
the  Book  of  Job  ?  The  Matters  in  the  Difcourfe  of  the  Religion  of 
Protfjjnts  could  not  be  treated  as  they  are  without  exhibiting  the 
two  Charafters  of  a  Sophift  and  a  true  Logician.  Nor  could  the 
Matters  in  the  Book  of  Job  be  treated  as  they  are  without  exhibiting 
a  good  Man  in  Affliftions,  complaining  and  expoftulating,  impa- 
tient under  the  Contradidlon  of  his  Friends,  yet  at  length  brought 
back  to  a  due  SubmllTion,  and  Knowledge  of  himfelf.  But  there- 
fore to  make  this  thefole  or  chief  Scope  of  the  Book,  (for  in  this 
he  varies)  is  perverting  all  the  Rules  of  Interpretation.  But  what 
mifled  him  we  have  taken  Notice  of  above.  And  he  himfelf  points 
to  it,  where  he  fays,  the  SubjeSl  I  have  ajfigned  to  the  Book  o/"  Job 
appears  the  true  both  from  the  beginning  and  the  end.  It  is  true, 
he  adds,  and /row  the  Oeconomy  of  the  -whole  likewife. 

Which 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         299 

Which  he  endeavours  to  prove  in  this  Manner  : 

For  it  firj}  prefents  Job  complaining,  expnf.ulaling,  and  indulging 
him f -If  in  an  ungovernable  Gief:  but  foon  after  (when,  as  the  Nature 
of  the  /acred  Drama  required,  by  the  Contraditiiqa  of  his  Fri.nds^ 
and  their  Jinijler  Sufpicions,  he  became  more  and  more  tei%ed  and  irri- 
tated) raJIJy  challenging  God,  and  ghrying  in  lis  own  Integrity  :  yet 
at  length  brought  back  to  a  due  SubmiJJion  and  Knowledge  of  himfelf', 
and  then  at  laji,  and  not  before,  receiving  from  God  both  the  Reward 
and  Tejiimony  of  his  Uprightnefs.  This  is  indeed  a  fair  Aecoiuit  of 
the  Conducft  of  the  Drama.  And  from  this  it  appears,  fif,  that 
that  which  he  aligns  for  the  fble  Scope  of  the  Book  cannot  be  the 
true.  For  if  its  Defign  were  to  give  a  perpetual  Document  of  Hu- 
mility and  Patience,  how  comes  it  to  pafs,  that  the  Author,  in  the 
Execution  of  this  Defign,  reprefents  Job  complaining,  expoitulating^ 
and  indulging  hinifelf  in  an  ungovernable  Grief,  raf)ly  challenging 
God,  and  glorying  in  his  own  Integrity  f  Could  a  Painter,  think 
you,  in  order  to  reprefent  the  Eafe  and  Safety  of  Navigation,  draw 
a  Veflel  getting  with  much  Pains  and  Difficulty  into  Harbour, 
after  having  lofl  all  her  Lading  and  been  miierably  torn  and  fhat- 
tered  by  a  Tempefl  ?  And  yet  you  think  a  Writer,  in  order  to 
give  a  Document  of  Humility  and  Patience,  had  fufficiently  dif- 
charged  his  Plan  if  he  made  "Job  conclude  refgned  and  fubmijfive^ 
though  he  had  drawn  him  turbulent,  impatient,  and  almoft  blaf- 
phemous  throughout  the  whole  Piece.  Secondly,  it  appears  from 
the  learned  Author's  Account  of  the  Conduit  of  the  Drama,  that 
that  which  I  have  afiigned  for  the  fble  Scope  of  the  Book  is  the 
true.  For  if,  in  Job's  diftrefsful  Circumflance,  the  Queflion  con- 
cerning an  equal  or  unequal  Providence  were  to  be  debated  :  His 
Friends,  if  they  held  the  former  Part,  mufl  w^f^/j  doubt  of  his  In- 
tegrity ;  this  doubt  would  naturally  provoke  'yob''s  Indignation  ; 
and,  when  perfifted  in,  caufe  him  to  fly  out  into  the  intemperate 
Excefles  fo  well  defbribed  by  our  Author;  yet  confcious  Innocence 
would  at  length  enable  Patience  to  do  its  Office,    and    the  con- 

Q  q  2  cliifive 


300  REMARKS    OX    SEVERAL 

clijfive  Argument  for  his  Integrity  would  be  his  Rcfignatlon  and 

Siibmirtion. 

The  learned  Writer  fluits  up  tlie  Argument  thus.  From  all  this, 
J  /hy,  it  oppcirs,  that  the  perjbnal  Integrity  o/"  Job,  and  not  the  ^ief- 
iion  concerning  an  equal  or  unequal  Providence,  is  the  principal  SubjeH 
of  the  Book.  He  had  before  only  told  us  his  Opinion;  and  now, 
from  his  Opinion,  he  fays  it  appears.  But  Appearances,  we  fee,  are 
deceitful ;  as  indeed  they  will  always  be,  when  they  arife  only- 
cut  of  the  Fancy  or  hiclination,  and  not  from  the  real,  nature  of 
things. 

But  he  proceeds  to  pufh  his  Advantages.  For  that  [i.  e.  his  per- 
fonal  Integrity]  it  was  which  his  Friends  doubted  of,  not  fo  much  on 
account  of  his  Ajjlidiion,  as  for  the  not  bearing  his  AfiiSlion  with  Pa- 
iience,  but  complaining  of  the  Jujlice  of  God.  And  that  he,  ivho  was- 
an  able  Advifer  of  ethers  to  Fortitude  and  Conjlancy,  floould,  when 
his  own  Trial  came,  fnk  under  the  Stroke  of  his  Difajlers. — But 
^vhy  not  on  account  of  his  AJfiiBionsf  Do  not  we  find  that  even 
now,  under  this  unequal  Diftribution  of  Things,  cenforious  Men 
(and  fuch  doubtlefs  he  will  confefs  Job's  Comforters  to  have  been)- 
are  but  too  apt  to  fufpeft  great  Afflictions  for  the  Punifliment  of 
fecrtt  Sins  ?  How  much  more  prone  to  the  fame  Sufpicion  would 
fuch  men  be  in  the  Time  of  Job,  when  the  Ways  of  Provi- 
dence were  more  equal?  A.S  to  his  Impatience  in  bearing  Afli^ion^ 
that  Symptom  was  altogether  ambiguous,  and  might  as  likely  de- 
note want  of  Fortitude  as  want  of  Innocence,  and  proceed  as  well 
from  the  Pain  of  an  ulcerated  Body  as  the  Anguifh  of  a  diftradted 
Confcience. 

"Well,  our  Author  has  brought  the  Patriarch  thus  far  on  his  Way 
to  expofe  his  bad  Temper.  From  hence  he  accompanies  him  to  his- 
Place  of  Reft  ;  which,  he  makes  to  be  in  a  bad  Argument.— Nozv^ 
when  (fays  the  learned  Writer)  the  moji  grievous  Trial  of  all  was 
added  to  the  other  Evils  of  this  holy  Perfon,  to  be  condemned  by  his 
Friends  as  a  Profligate^  and  an  Hypocrite^  and  to  be  deprived^  as  much 


as 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  301 

in  them  lay^  of  his  only  remaining  Support,  the  Teftimony  of  a  good 
Goufcience,  what  was  left  for  the  unhappy  M.m  to  do  ?  He  accufes 
his  Friends  of  Perfidy  and  Cruelty  ;  he  -calls  upon  God  as  the  IVitnefs 
and  Avenger  of  his  Integrity :  But  when  neither  God  inter pojed  to  vin' 
dicate  his  Innocence,  nor  his  Friends  forbore  to  urge  their  harf)  Cenfures 
and  unjufl  Accujations,  he  appeals  to  that  laft  Judgment,  in  which 
with  the  utmoji  Confidence  he  affirms  that  he  hiew  that  his  Redeemer 
ivould  be  prcfent  to  him^  and  that  God  would  declare  in  his  Favour^ 
To  underftand  the  Force  of  this  Reprefentation,  we  muft  have  ia 
Mind  this  unqueftlonable  Truth  :  "  That  be  the  Subject  of  the  Book 
**  what  it  will,  yet  if  the  lacred  Writer  bring  in  the  Perfons  of  the 
"  Drama  difputing,  he  will  take  Care  that  they  talk  to  the  Purpofe." 
Now  we  both  agree  that  JoFs  Friends  had  pretended  to  fufpedl  his 
Integrity.  This  Sufplcion  it  was  Job's  Bufinefs  to  remove  :  and, 
if  our  Author's  Account  of  the  Subjed  be  true,  his  only  Bulinefs. 
To  this  end  he  offers  various  Arguments,  which  failing  of  their 
EfFeft,  he,  at  laft  (as  our  Author  will  have  it),  appeals  to  the  fe- 
cond  Coming  of  the  Redeemer  of  Mankind.  But  was  this  likely 
to  fatlsfy  them  ?  They  demand  a  prefent  Solution  of  their  Doubts^ 
and  he  lends  them  to  a  future  Judgment.  Nor  can  our  Author, 
fay,  though  he  would  infinuate,  that  this  was  fucha  fort  of  Appeal 
as  Difputants  are  fometimes  forced  to  have  Recourfe  to,  when  they, 
are  run  aground  and  have  nothing  more  to  offer  :  For  Job,,  after 
this,  proceeds  in  the  Difpute  ;  and  urges  many  other  ArgumentSi 
with  the  utmoft  Propriety.  Indeed  there  is  one  way,  and  but  one„ 
to  make  the  Appeal  pertinent :  And  that  is,  to  fuppofe  our  Author. 
mifiaken,  when  he  idixdi  X.\\?,t  the  petfonal  Integrity  oj'johy  and  not  th& 
^efiion  concertiing  an  equal  or  unequal  Providence,  was  the  main  Sub-^ 
je^l  of  the  Book:  And  we  may  venture  to  fuppofe  fo  without  much, 
danger  of  doing  him  wrong :  For,  the  Dodrine  of  a.  future  Judgment. 
affords  a  Principle  whereon  to  determine  the  ^efiion  of  an  equal  or 
unequal  Providence  ;  but  it  leaves  the  perfonal  Integrity  o/' Job  juft  as 
it  found  it.     But  the  learned  Author  is  fo  little  folicitous  for  tha 

Pertinency.' 


30J  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Pertinency  of  the  Argument,  that  he  makes,  as  we  (hall  now  fee, 
its  Impertinence  one  of  the  great  Supports  of  his  Syftem.  For  thus 
he  goes  on  :  But  now  if  the  Hinge  of  the  Coniroverfy  had  turned  on 
this,  -whether  or  no,  conffiently  with  God's  Jujlice,  good  Men  could  be 
offii£led  in  this  Life,  this  Declaration  ought  to  have  fnified  the  De- 
bate :  but  if  the  ^itfion  were  concerning  the  ferfonal  Innocence  of  Job, 
it  was  no  wonder  that  they  Jiill  fung  their  old  Song^  and  went  on  as 
they  had  begun,  to  condemn  their  old  affiibied  Friend ;  fnce  it  was  in 
the  Power  of  God  alone  to  explore  the  Hearts  of  Men,  and  to  know 
for  certain  whether  it  was  Job's  Piety  that  rightly  applied  a  Confola^ 
tion,  or  whether  it  was  his  Vanity  that  arrogated  afalfe  Confidence  to 
himfelf.  This  is  a  very  pleafant  Way  of  coming  to  the  Senfe  of 
a  difputed  Paflage  :  Not,  as  of  old,  by  (hewing  it  fuports  the  Wri- 
ter's  Argument,  but  by  (hewing  it  fupports  nothing  but  the  Critic's 
Hypothefu.  1  had  taken  it  for  granted  that  Job  reafoned  to  the 
Purpofe,  and  therefore  urged  this  Argument  againft  underflanding 
him  as  fpeaking  of  the  Refurreftion  in  the  xixth  Chapter.  "  The 
"  Difputants  (fay  I,  Div.  Leg.  Vol.  ii.  Ed.  2.*  p.  546),  are  all  equally 
*'  embarrafled  in  adjufting  the  Ways  of  Providence.  Job  affirms 
*'  that  the  good  Man  is  fometimes  unhappy  :  the  three  Friends  pre- 
*'  tend  that  he  never  can ;  becaufe  fuch  a  Situation  would  refledl 
*'  upon  God's  Juftice.  Now  the  Do£trine  of  a  Refurreciion  fuppofed 
*'  to  be  urged  by  fob  cleared  up  all  this  Embarras.  If  therefore  his 
*'  Friends  thought  it  true,  it  ended  the  Difpute  ;  if  fiilfe,  it  lay 
**  upon  them  to  confute  it.  Yet  they  do  neither  :  They  neither 
*'  call  it  into  queflion,  nor  allow  it  to  be  decifivc.  But  without 
**  the  Icaft  Notice  that  any  fuch  thing  had  been  urged,  they  go 
*'  on  as  they  begun,  to  inforce  their  former  Arguments,  and  to 
*♦  confute  that  which  they  feem  to  underftand  was  the  only  one 
*'  Job  had  urged  againft  them,  viz.  the  Confcioufnefs  of  his  own 
*'  Innocence."  Now  what  fays  our  learned  Author  to  this  ? 
Why,  he  fays,  that  if  I  be  miftaken,  and  he  right,  in  his  Ac- 
count of  the  Book  of  Job,   the  Reafon  is  plain  why  the  three 

*  Vol.  III.  ed.  4to.  p.  524. 

Friends 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  303 

Friends  took  no  notice  of  JoFs  Appeal  to  a  Refurrtdion  ;  nnmclv, 
becaufc  it  deferved  none.  As  to  his  being  in  t!ie  R/gbf^  the  Reader, 
I  funpofe,  will  not  be  greatly  folicitous,  if  it  be  oneoftheCon- 
fequences  that  the  facred  Realbner  is  in  the  IFrong.  However, 
before  we  allow  him  to  be  right,  it  will  be  expe<3ed  he  fhould  an- 
fwer  the  following  Queftions.  If,  as  he  fays,  the  Point  in  the  Book 
oi  y,b  was  only  his  ferjonal  Innocence,  and  this,  not  (as  I  fay)  upon. 
the  Principle  of  no  innocent  Per/on  puniJJ.^ed,  I  would  alk  how  it  was 
poffible  that  JoFs  Friends  and  Intimates  (hould  be  fo  obftinately 
bent  on  pronouncing  him  guilty,  the  Purity  of  whofe  former  Life 
and  Converfation  they  were  fo  well  acquainted  with  ?  If  he  will- 
fay,  the  Difputants  went  upon  that  Principley  1  then  afk  how  came 
yob'^s  Appeal  to  a  Refurrediou  not  to  filence  his  Oppofers  ?  as  it 
accounted  for  the  Jufticeof  God  in  the  prefent  unequal  Diflributioa 
of  Things. 

The  learned  Writer  proceeds — This  Difficulty  therefore  being  re^ 
moved,  namely,  isohy  his  Friends  ivere  not  immediately  put  to  filcnce 
ivhen  Job  had  Jo  Jolcmnly  and  magnificently  talked  of  a  future  Judg^ 
ment,  nothing  hinders  us  from  applying  that  celebrated  Text  chap. 
XIX.  not  to  a  temporal  Rejlitution  to  his  former  Condition,  but  to  a  Re- 
furreolion  to  eternal  Life.  How  well  he  has  removed  the  Difficulty ^ 
the  Reader  now  fees.  But  he  is  too  hafty,  when  he  adds,  that 
now  nothing  hinders  us  from  applying  that  celebrated  Text  chap.  xix.. 
to  a  Kefur region  to  eternal  Life.  I  have  fhewn,  in  my  Difcourfe 
on  Job,  that  many  Things  hinder  us  from  underftanding  it  in  this 
Senfe,  befides  the  Silence  of  the  three  Friends ;  fuch  as  the  Silence 
of  Elihu  the  Moderator,  nay  even  of  God  himfelf  the  Determiner 
of  the  Difpute  *.  Which  Difficulties  become  flill  more  perplex- 
ing, if  indeed  l\\efole  Scope  of  the  Book  be,  as  our  Author  fuppofes,. 
to  give  a  perpetual  Document  of  Humility  and  Patience  to  all  good  Men 
in  JiffliSlion  :  For  then  the  Dodrine  needed  the  Sanftion  of  the  moft 
deliberate  and  authoritative  Speakers.     Add  to  this,  that  the  learned 

*  Divine  Legation,  vol.  III.  p.  298. 

Writer'^s 


304  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Writer's  Account  of  the  Author  creates  new  Difficulties.  For  catr 
wc  fiippofc,  Mofcs  would  fo  clearly  mention  z  future  Judgment  here, 
nnd  entirely  omit  it  in  the  Pentateuch  ?  Or  is  it  a  Matter  of  fo 
flight  Moment  that  a  finglc  Mention  of  it  would  fuffice  ?  Indeed, 
were  EfJra  (as  I  fuppofe)  the  Author,  much  more  might  be  faid 
In  behalf  of  this  Interpretation ;  as  we  have  fhewii  that  the  later 
Prophets  opened,  by  degrees,  the  great  Principles  of  the  Gofpel 
Difpenfation  :  Of  which  I  would  fain  think  the  Dodlrine  of  the 
Rt'JurrcSllonof  the  Body  to  be  one. 

He  concludes — But  if  to  the  Arguments  brought  by  our  Commentator^ 
you  adda/fo  thofe,  which  a  Writer  above  all  Praife,  the  prefent  Bijl.wp 
of  Sarum,  hath  mof  beautifully  interwoven  in  his  Dijertation  on  The 
Opinion  of  the  Ancients  concerning  the  Circumftances  and  Con- 
fequences  of  the  Lapfc  of  Mankind,  I  believe  you  will  want  nothing 
to  confrm  you  in  the  Opinion  of  the  Antiquity  of  the  Book,  and  my 
Scnfe  of  this  mof  perplexed  Paffage.  To  feek  refuge  in  that  excel- 
lent Prelate,  whofe  Notions  of  the  Nature  and  Defign  of  the  Book 
of  Job  overtiirow  all  he  has  been  faying,  and  confirm  all  he  has 
been  oppofing,  looks  very  much  like  Diftrefs.  However,  if  he 
will  fubmit  to  the  Biftiop's  Authority  for  the  Scope  of  the  Book  in 
general,  I  (hall  be  very  willing  to  allow  his  Interpretation  of  the 
nineteenth  Chapter.  Our  Author  indeed  does  that  great  Man's 
Chara£l:er  but  Juftice.  Yet  how  Dr.  Schultens  and  Dr.  Sherlock 
came  to  hit  the  fame  Palate,  to  me,  I  confefs,  is  as  hard  to  recon- 
cile, as  how  Bavius  and  Virgil  fhould  meet  for  a  Model  to  the  fame 
Writer. 

But  the  Name  of  that  great  Man  is  aufplcious  to  facred  Truth. 
One  can  no  fooner  mention  him,  on  any  Occafion  of  Literature, 
than  one  fees  him  pointing  out  fome  Truth  or  other,  capable,  if  at- 
tended to,  of  clearing  up  whatever  may  be  in  queftion.  His  fine 
Difccurfe  on  the  Book  of  fob  abounds  with  Inftances  of  this  kind. 
One  of  which  falls  here  naturally  in  my  Way.  And  as  it  feems  the 
leafl:  fupporttd  of  his  Interpretations,  and,  at  the  fame  time,  greatly 
confirujs  what  I  have  advanced  concerning  the  Age  of  the  Book,  I 

fliall 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         305 

(hall  endeavour  to  fet  it  in  a  jufl:  Light.  The  Truth  I  mean  is  In  his 
Interpretation  of  thele  Words  of  Job^  By  his  Spirit  the  Heavens 
are  garnijhed',  his  Hand  formed  the  crooked  Serpent*.  By 
which,  he  fuppofes,  is  meant  the  Devil,  the  apojiate  Dragon^ 
^paxuv  ciTTocciTiijc,  as  the  Septuagint,  by  thus  tranflating  it,  feems  to 
have  underftood  the  Place.     For  he  reafonably  alks,  How  came  the 

forming  of  a  crooked  Serpent  to  be  mentioned  as  an  Infance  of  Al- 
mighty Power,  and  to  be  fet,  as  it  were,  upon  an  equal  Foot  with 
the  Creation  of  the  Heavens  and  alt  the  Hofl  of  them. — Ccm  it  pof- 

Jtbly  be  imagined  (fays  he)  that  the  forming  the  crooked  Serpent  means 
no  more  than  that  God  created  Snakes  and  Adders  f.  Certainly,  this 
could  never  be  the  meaning.  But  then  it  will  be  objefted  by  thofe 
who  are  as  loth  to  find  a  Devil  for  their  Tempter,  as  a  God  for  their 
Redeemer  (imagining  they  are  well  capable  of  performing  both 
Parts  themfelves),  that,  by  the  crooked  Serpent,  is  meant  a  great 
Confellation  near  the  Ardllc  Pole,  io  called ;  or,  at  leaf!:,  that  enor- 
mous Trail  of  Light  to  which  the  Pagans  have  given  the  Name  of 
the  Via  Laolea  :  either  of  which  will  beautify  the  Senfe,  and  ennoble 
the  Expreflion  of  the  Context ;  the  Circumftance,  of  garnifjing  the 
Heavens,  being  immediately,  precedent.  It  mufl:  be  owned  that  this 
Interpretation  has  an  extreme  Air  of  Probability.  But  it  is  never- 
thelefs  a  falfe  one  ;  as  I  (hall  now  endeavour  to  (hew. 

It  Is  certain  then  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  (if  we  may  believe 
the  Rabbins,  who  feem.  In  this  cafe,  to  be  unexceptionable  Evi- 
dence) did  not,  in  their  Aftronomy,  reprefent  the  Stars,  either 
fuigle,  or  In  Conftellatlons,  by  the  Name,  or  Figure,  of  any  Ani- 
mal whatfoever  ;  or  diftlnguKh  them  any  otherwife  than  by  the 
Letters  of  their  Alphabet  artificially  applied.  And  this,  they  tell 
us,  was  their  conftant  Practice,  till  in  the  latter  Ages ;  when  they 
got  acquainted  with  the  Science  of  the  Greeks :  then  indeed,  they 
learnt  the  Art  of  new  tricking   up  their  Sphere,  and  making  it  as 

*   Cap.  xxvi.  ver.  13. 

+  The  Ufe  and  Intent  of  Prophecy,  &c,   3CI  Edit,  p.  215,  114. 

Vol.  VI.  R  r  faflilonable 


3o6  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

fafhional.le  as  tluir  N-.igl.hours.  But  they  clid  it  flill  with  Modcfiy 
and  Rcfcrvc  ;  niul  fcrupkd.  even  thai,  to  admit  of  any  human 
Figure.  The  Rcnibn  given  for  this  Prudery  (which  was  the  Danger 
cf  Idolatry)  is  the  Jilghcft  Coufiimation  of  the  Truth  of  their  Ac- 
count, i'or  it  Is  not  to  be  believed,  that  when  the  Ajironomy  and 
Superjliticn  of  Egypt  were  lb  clofeJy  colleagued,  and  that  by  this 
very  intans,  the  l^ames  given  to  the  Conftellatlons,  that  Mofes^ 
who,  under  the  Mlniftry  of  God,  forbad  the  Ifrae'^ites  to  make  any 
Likenefs  of  any  thing  in  Heaven  above,  would  fufFer  them  to  make 
neiv  Likctijcs  there:  which  if  not,  in  the  firft  Intention,  fct  up  to 
be  worlhipfed,  yet  we  know  never  waited  long  without  obtaining 
that  Honour.  From  all  this  it  appears,  that  neither  Mofes  nor 
Efdra  could  call  a  Conftellation  by  the  Name  of  the  crooked  Serpent. 
The  Conlequence  is,  that  his  Lordfhlp's  Interpretation  is  to  be  re- 
ceived ;  there  being  nothing  elle  of  Moment  to  be  oppofed  to  its 
Truth.  But  this  Senfe,  we  fay,  gives  ftrong  Support  to  what  we 
have  obferved,  in  The  Divine  Legation,  concerning  the  Age  cf  the 
Author.  It  being  there  (hewn  *,  that,  according  to  the  Method 
ufed  by  Providence  for  the  gradual  Opening  of  the  Gofpel  Princi- 
ples, we  might  look  to  find,  in  this  very  Place  (as  we  in  fadt  do 
find)  thtfirjl  more  exprefs  Information  concerning  the  real  Author 
of  the  Fall  of  Man,  as  recorded  in  the  third  Chapter  of  Gencjis. 

But,  to  conclude  with  the  learned  Editor  of  the  Book  of  Job. 
He  had,  1  prefume,  given  the  intelligent  Reader  more  Satisfadion, 
if,  inftead  of  labouring  to  evade  two  or  three  independent  though 
corroborating  Proofs  of  the  Truth  of  my  Hypothefis,  he  had  well 
accounted  how  that  Hypothefis,  which  he  affedls  to  reprelent  as  a 
falfe  one,  ihould  be  able  to  lay  open  and  unfold  the  whole  Poem 
upon  one  entire,  elegant,  and  noble  Plan,  that  does  honour  to  the 
facrcd  Writer  who  com.pofed  it.  And  not  only  fo,  but  to  clear  up, 
confiftently  with  that  Plan,  all  thofe  particular  Texts,  whofe  Want 
of  Light  had  made  them  hitherto  an  eafy  Prey  to  Critics  and  In- 

*  Div.  Leg.  vol.  111.  p.  614,  i^/eq. 

terpreters 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  307 

terpreters  from  every  Quarter.  And  this,  in  a  Poem  become  through 
Time  and  Negligence  fo  defperately  perplexed,  that  Commentators 
chole  rather  to  find  their  own  Notions  in  it  than  to  feek  for  thole  of 
the  Author.  This,  how  negligently  foever  the  learned  Writer  may 
think  of  it,  the  Public,  I  am  perfuaded,  will  confider  as  a  very 
uncommon  Mark  of  Truth  ;  and  deferving  of  another  kind  of  Con- 
futation than  what  he  hath  beftowed  upon  it. 


SECT.    V. 
See  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  I.  and  IL 

HE  R E  I  fliould  have  ended  had  I  not  been  told,  there  was 
fomething  ftill  more  wanted  than  a  Defence  of  particular 
Paflages  ;  which  commonly  indeed  carry  their  own  Evidence  along 
with  them;  and  That  was  a  general  Review  of  the  Argument  of 
T^he  Divine  Legation,  fo  far  as  it  was  yet  advanced ;  explaining  the 
Relation  which  the  feveral  Parts  bear  to  each  other,  and  to  the 
whole  :  For  that  the  deep  Profeflbr  who  had  digefted  his  Theology 
into  Sums  and  Ssjlems,  and  the  gentle  Preacher  who  never  ventured 
to  let  a  Thought  expatiate  beyond  the  Limits  of  a  Pulpit  EJfayj 
would  join  to  tell  me,  I  had  promifed  to  demonstrate  the  di- 
vine Legation  of  Moses;  and  that  now,  I  had  written  two 
large  Volumes  with  that  Title,  all  that  they  could  find  in  them 
were  Difcourfes  on  the  Foundation  of  Morality  ;  the  Origin  oj  civil 
and  religious  Society ;  the  Alliance  between  Church  and  State  ;  the 
Policy  of  ancient  Lawgivers  ;  the  Myfleries  of  the.Priefts,  and  the 
Opinions  of  the  Greek  Philofophers  ;  the  Antiquity  of  Egypt,  their 
Hieroghphics,  their  Heroes,  and  their  Brutal-Worfiip.  That,  in- 
deed, at  laft,  I  fpeak  a  little  of  the  fewip  Policy,  but  1  foon  break 
away  again  as  from  a  Subjeft  I  would  avoid  ;  and  employ  the  re- 
maining Part  of  the  Volume  on  the  Sacrifice  of  Ifaac,  the  Book  oj 
Rr2  Job, 


3o8  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

Job,  nnd  on  fritmiry  and faondary  Prophefies.     But  what,  fay  they, 
is  all  this  to  the  Divine  Legation  of  Moses  ? 
D':c,  Pojlhumel  de  irjtus  C/pe'u's. 

To  c:ill  ihe  Notion  a  Paradox  was  very  well  :  But  not  to  fee 

that  I  had  attempted  to  prove  it,  muft  be  owned  to  be  fllll  better. 
I  was  aware  of  this  Complaint,  becaufe  I  knew  with  whom  I  had 
to  do;  and  therefore,  in  the  Entry  of  my  fecoud  Volume,  was 
willing  that  Cicero,  who  had  been  in  the  like  Circumftance  him- 
felf,  (liould  fpeak  for  me  *. 

But  (as  it  proved)  to  little  Purpofe.  The  Greatnefs  of  his  Autho- 
rity, and  the  Docility  of  his  Readers,  which  made  a  few  Words 
fufficient  in  his  Cafe,  were  both  wanting  in  mine.  So  that  I  foou 
found  myfelf  under  a  NecefTuy  of  fpeaking  for  myfelfy  or  rather, 
for  my  Argument.  Which  as  it  was  drawn  out  to  an  uncommon 
Length,  and  raifed  upon  a  great  Variety  of  Supports,  fought  out 
from  every  Quarter  of  Antiquity,  and  fometimes  from  the  moft  re- 
mote and  darkefl,  it  was  the  lefs  to  be  admired  if  every  candid 
Reader  fliould  not  fee  their  full  Force  and  various  Purpofe  ;  and  ftill 
lefs,  if  the  Envious  and  Prejudiced  ftiould  concur  to  reprefent  it  as 
nn  inconne£led  Heap  of  Difcourfes  put  together  to  disburthen  a 
Common- place.  For  the  Satisfa£lion  therefore  of  the  former ,  I 
fhall  endeavour  to  expofe,  in  one  clear  and  fimple  Light,  the  whole 
Condudt  of  thefe  inyjierious  Volumes. 

Nor  Ihould  the  latter  be  negleded.  Though  'tis  odds  but  we  part 
as  difiatisfied  with  one  another,  as  Bertrand  and  his  Cuftomer.  Of 
whom  the  Story  goes,  that  a  grave  well  dreffed  Man,  coming  to 

♦  Video  banc  primam  ingreffionem  meam  non  ex  Oratoris  difputationibus  duflam, 
fid  i  media  Philofophia  repetitam,  &  cam  qiiidem  cum  antiquam  turn  fubobfcuram,  aut 
r(/.rc*M>/i;jaliquid,  aut  certe  <i^m;Va/;fl7;/j  habituram.  Nam  aut  mirabantur  jazW  hac 
pe  lincant  ad  la  qua  quarimus :  quibus  fatisfaciet  res  ipfa  cognita,  ut  non  fine  caufa  alt« 
repetita  videatur  :  aut  reprehendent,  quod  iuufitatas  vias  indagemus  tritas  rellnquamus. 
Ego  autem  mc  fipe  nova  videre  dicere  intelligo  cum  pervetera  dicam,  fed  inaudita  ple- 
rifque,  Cicero, 

the 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  309 

tlic  Shop  of  that  ingenious  Inventer  and  Reliever  of  the  Diftreflcs 
of  all  thofe  who  are  too  dull  to  know  what  they  want,  and  too 
rich  to  be  at  Eafe  with  what  they  have,  demanded  one  of  his  befl: 
Reading  Glafles ;  which  when  he  had  examined  upon  all  Sorts  of 
Print,  he  returned  back  with  folemn  Aflurance  that  he  could  not 
read  at  all  in  it.  Berirand,  when  he  had  recovered  from  the  Sur- 
prile  of  fo  llrange  a  Phenomenon,  fiiirly  afked  him,  ^/>,  could  you 
ever  read  at  all  ?  To  which  the  other  as  fiiirly  replied.  Had  I  been 
fo  bappx,  I  had  7iot  come  hither  for  your  JJJl/lance.  Should  I  not 
therefore,  with  the  fame  Forecafi:,  have  aflced  thefe  People,  "  Gen- 
♦'  tlemen,  before  I  put  my  Argument  for  you  in  a  new  Light,  pray 
*'  tell  me,  do  you  underiland  an  Argument  in  any  Light  at  allr'* 
But  would  they  have  anfwered  with  the  fame  Ingenuity  ?  They 
are  filent.  They  modeftly  let  their  Works  fpeak  for  them.  To  go 
on,  therefore,  with  our  Subje(5l. 

In  reading  the  Law  and  Hijiiry  of  the  Jews,  with  all  the  At- 
tention I  was  able,  amongft  the  many  very  fingular  Circumflances 
of  that  amazing  Difpenfation  (from  each  of  which,  as  I  conceive, 
the  Divinity  of  its  Original  may  be  clearly  deduced)  thefe  two  Par- 
ticulars more  forcibly  ftruck  my  Obfervation,  Firjl,  the  OmiJJion  of 
the  Do5lrine  of  a  Future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments  in  the 
Religion  of  that  People  ;  no  Inflance  of  the  like  Nature  being  to  be 
found  throughout  the  whole  Hiftory  of  Mankind  :  In  all  the  in- 
finite Variety  of  Gentile  Religions  this  Doclrine  ever  making  a 
principal  and  mofl  eflential  Part.  The  other  was  no  lefs  fingular, 
that  the  Founder  of  this  Religion  (hould  pretend  his  Difpenfation 
was  to  be  adminifered  by  an  extraordinary  Providence  ;  that  his. 
Laws  fhould  have  ail  one  conftant  Direftion  purfuant  to  this  Pre- 
tence ;  and  that  the  fucceeding  Writers  of  the  Jewifti  Hiftory  fhould 
all  concur  in  the  fame  Reprelentation  :  No  Lawgiver  or  Founder 
of  Religion  ever  promifing  the  like  Diftinftion  ;  and  no  Hiftoriaix 
ever  daring  to  record  fo  fingular  a  Prerogative. 

As 


310  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

As  unnccoiintablc  as  \\\t  fortmr  Circumflance  appeared,  when 
coniiJcrcd  Ic-parately  and  alone,  yet  when  fet  againft  the  Litter,  and 
their  Relations  to  each  other  examined,  one  ilkiftrious  Reafon  of 
t!v.'  Omiffion  of  the  DoSirine  of  a  Future  State  was  not  only  imme- 
diately perceived,  but,  from  that  very  Omljfion,  the  Divinity  of  the 
Jewifh  Religion  clearly  demonftrated.  Which,  as  UnbeHevers  had 
been  long  accuftomed  to  decry  from  that  very  Circumftance,  I 
chofc  that  preferably  to  all  other,  as  a  Proof  of  The  Divine  Le- 
gation OF  MosES.  The  Argument  is,  in  a  fupreme  Degree, 
ftrong  and  fimple ;  and  not  needing  many  Words  to  make  it  un- 
derftood. 

I.  Religion,  fuch  as  teaches  a  God,  the  Rewarder  of  Good,  and 
the  Puniiher  of  evil  Adions,  is  abfolutely  neceffary  for  the  Support 
of  Civil  Society  :  Becaufe  human  Laws  alone  are  not  fufficient  to 
rcftrain  Men  from  Evil  in  any  degree  neceflary  for  the  carrying  on 
the  Affliirs  of  public  Regiment.  But  the  Inequality  of  Events  here 
below  fhaking,  the  Belief  of  that  Providence  on  which  all  Religion 
muft  be  founded  (for  he  that  cometh  to  God  mujl  believe  that  he  is, 
and  that  he  is  a  Rewarder  of  them  who  diligently  feek  him)  there  was 
no  other  Way  of  fupporting  and  re-eftablifliing  that  Belief  than 
by  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State,  wherein  all  thefe  Inequalities 
{hould  be  fet  even,  and  every  Action  receive  its  due  Recompence  of 
Reward,  The  Do£lrine  therefore  of  a  future  State  is  immediately 
neceffary  to  Religion ;  and,  through  that,  ultimately  to  civil  Society. 
Yet,  here  we  find  a  Religion  without  a  future  State,  profeffed  with 
great  Advantage  through  many  Ages  by  a  civil-policled  and  power- 
ful People.  It  appears,  from  what  has  been  faid  above,  that,  under 
the  common  Dlfpenfations  of  Providence,  fuch  a  Religion  would  be 
fo  far  from  fupporting  Society,  that  it  could  not  even  fubfift  itfelf. 
We  muft  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  Jewifh  People  were,  as  their 
Founder  and  their  Hiftorians  pretended,  indeed  under  the  Difpenfa- 
tion  of  an  extraordinary  Providence. 

II.  Again, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  311 

II.  Again,  it  appears  from  the  unlverfiU  PraHice  of  tlie  ancient 
Lawgivers,  and  tlie  Principlei  of  the  ancient  .^^/^rj-,  that  the  Doc- 
trine of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments  was  efleemed 
thus  neceflary  to  Rehgion  and  Society,  under  the  common  Difpen- 
lations  of  Providence.  The  Egyptian  PoHcy  and  W'ifdom  particu- 
larly, from  whence  thofe  Lawgivers  and  S:!gss  borrowed  theirs^ 
cuhivated  this  Dodrine,  for  thefe  En<ls,  with  an  amazing  Afliduity. 
Now  Mofes,  who,,  as  we  are  affured  by  the  infallible  Teflimony  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  was  learned  in  all  the  IFiJiJom  of  (he  Egyptians^  and 
whofe  Laws  themfelves,  as  the  Deift  confefies,  befpeak  him  a  con- 
fummate  Mafter  in  his  Art  ;  this  Mofes,  1  fay,  when  inftituting  a 
new  Religion,  and  forming  an  uncivilized  People  to  Society,  hath 
been  fo  far  from  inculcating  the  Dodrine  of  a  future  State  of  Re- 
wards and  Punifhments,  that  he  hath  even  omitted  to  make  the 
leafl:  Mention  of  it.  Who  fees  not  then  that  one  Reafon  of  the 
OmiJJion  muft  needs  be,  that  this  wife  Lawgiver  iinderftood,  his 
Religion  and  Policy  might  well  fubfift  without  it  ?  But,  under 
the  common  Difpenfaticns  of  Providence,  liis  Principles  oi Egyptian 
Wifdom  had  taught  him,  that  neither  one  nor  the  other  could  da 
fo.  What  therefore  are  we  to  conclude,  but  that  he  himfclf  was 
fully  convinced  of  the  Truth  of  what  he  taught  his  Countrymen, 
That  they  were  thLncejor'wardto  live  under  the  extraordinary  Providence 
of  God. 

Thefe  two  Proofs  of  my  main  Proposition,  from  the  Thim^ 
omitted,  and  the  Perfon  omitting  (which  as  they  are  diftindt  and  in- 
dependent cf  one  another,  fo  I  would  defire  the  Reader  to  obfervc 
that  they  are  either  of  them  alo7ie  fufficient  to  eftablifli  my  Demoa- 
ftration)  may  be  reduced  to  thefe  two  Syllogisms. 

I.  Whatfoever  Religion  and  Society  have  no  future  State  for  their 

Support,  muft  be  fupported  by  an  extraordinary  Providence,. 

The  Jewifh  Religion  and  Society  had  no  future  State  for  their 

Support. 
Therefore  the  Jewifh  Religion  and  Society  were  fupported  by 
an  extraordinary  Providence.. 

Againv. 


3J2  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Again,  II.  It  was  univerfally  believed  by  the  Ancients,  on  their 
common  Trinciples  of  Legiflation  and  Wifdom,  that  what- 
ibever  Religion  and  Society  have  no  future  State  for  their 
Support  muft  be  fupported  by  an  extraordinary  Providence. 

Mofcs,  fkilled  in  all  that  Legiflation  and  Wifdom,  Inrtltuted 

the  JewiJ})  Religion  and  Society  without  a  future  State  for 

its  Support. 
Therefore  Mofes  who  taught,  believed  likewlfe,  tliat  thii  Rell- 

glon  and  Society  were  to  be  fupported   by  an  extraordinary 

Providence. 

This  Is  the  grand  Paradox  I  have  been  accufed  of  advancing: 
In  the  mean  while,  the  Free  think  r  efteems  it  none  to  contradidt  the 
unlverfal  Voice  of  Antiquity;  nor  the  Syjlem-maker^  to  explain 
away  the  whole  Letter  of  facred  Scripture.  For  had  not  Libertines 
denied  the  major  Propofitions  of  thefe  two  Syllogifms  ;  and  certain 
Blgotted-believers,  the  minor;  my  Demon  ftrat  ion  oi  The  Divine 
Legation  of  Mofes  had  not  only  been  as  Jirong,  but  as  fhort  too  as 
any  of  Euclid^ s :  whofe  Theorems,  zsHobbes  fome where  truly  ob« 
ferves,  were  but  the  Paffions  and  Prejudices  of  Men  equally  con- 
cerned in,  would  foon  be  made  as  much  matter  of  Difpute  as  any 
vioral  or  theological  Propofitlon  whatfoever. 

It  was  not  long  then  before  I  found  that  the  DIfcovery  of  this 
important  Truth  would  engage  me  In  a  full  DUucIdation  of  my 
four  Propnftions  :  Neither  a  (hort,  nor  an  eafy  Task.  The  twofrfi 
requiring  a  fevere  Search  into  the  civil  Policy,  Religion,  and  Phl- 
lofophy  of  ancient  Times :  and  the  two  latter,  a  minute  Enquiry 
concerning  the  Nature  and  Genius  of  the  Jewifh  Conftltutlon.  To 
the  frj  part  of  this  Enquiry,  therefore,  I  affigned  thefrjl  Volume; 
and  to  the  other,  the  fecond. 

1.  The 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS.  513 

I. 

I.  The  FIRST  Volume  begins  with  provhig  the  major  Propo- 
fition  of  the  jirjl  Syllogifm,  that  "whatfoever  Religion  and  Society 
have  no  future  State  for  their  Support^  mujl  be  fupported  by  an  extraor- 
dinary Providence.  Where  it  is  flievvn,  that  Civil  Society,  which 
was  inftituted  as  a  Remedy  againft  Force  and  Injujlice,  falls  (hort  in 
many  Inftances,  of  its  EfFeil ;  as  it  cannot,  by  its  own  proper  Force, 
provide  for  the  Obfervance  of  above  one  third  Part  of  morjl  Duties  ; 
and,  of  that  Third,  but  imperfeBly  :  and,  which  is  ftill  of  greater 
Importance,  that  it  totally  wants  the  fji  of  thofe  two  Powers, 
Reward  and  Puni/Jj/rent,  which  are  owned  by  all  to  be  the  necef- 
fary  Hinges  on  which  Government  turns,  and  without  which  it 
cannot  be  carried  on.  To  fupply  which  Wants  and  Imperfeclions, 
fome  other  coa(5tive  Power  was  to  be  added.  This  Power  is  (hewn 
to  he  Religion ;  which  teaching  x\\e  Providence  and  Jiiflice  of  the 
Deity,  provides  for  all  the  natural  Deficiencies  of  c/'i;/7;>S'(/C/V/v.  But 
then  thofe  Attributes,  as  we  fliew,  can  be  fupported  only  by  the 
Doctrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments ;  or  by  a 
prefent  Difpenfation  of  Things  very  different  from  that  which  we 
experience  to  be  here  adminiftered. 

The  point  being  thus  proved,  the  Difcourfe  proceeds  in  removing 
ChjeEiions.  The  Reader  obferves,  that  the  Steps  and  Gradations  of 
this  great  Truth  rife  thus. — A  future  State  is  neceflary,  as  it  fup- 
ports  Religion  ;  Religion  is  necefThry,  as  it  fupports  Morality ;  and 
Morality,  as  it  fupports  Society.  Hence  I  concluded  the  Doitrine 
of  ^.  future  State  to  be  neceflary  to  Society.  Now  there  are  various 
degrees  in  Libertinifm.  Some,  though  they  own  Morality,  yet 
deny  Religion,  to  be  neceflary  to  Society :  Others  again  go  fl:ill 
further,  and  deny  even  Morality  to  be  neceflary.  As  thefe  equally 
attempt  to  break  the  Chain  of  my  Reafoning,  they  come  equally 
under  my  Examination.  And  luckily,  in  the  frji  Infl:ance,  a  great 
Name,  and  in  the  fecofid,  a  great  Book,  invited  me  to  this  Enter- 
tainment.    I.  The  famous  Mr.  i?^yt'   iiad  attempted  to  prove  that 

Vol.  VI.  S  s  Religion 


3,4  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

Rellglott  was  not  nccelTary  to  Society  ;  that  Morality,  as  dlftln- 
guKhcd  fiom  Religion,  might  well  fupply  its  Place ;  and  tliat  an 
Atheist  might  have  this  Morality.  His  Arguments  in  Support  of 
rhei'e  Propofitions  I  have  examined  at  large.  And  having  Occafion, 
when  1  come  to  the  laft  of  them,  to  enquire  into  ihe  true  Foundation 
of  Morality,  I  confidtr  all  its  Pretences  ;  inquire  into  all  its  Advan- 
tages ;  and  fliew  that  Obligation,  properly  fo  called,  proceeds  from 
Will,  and  Will  only.  This  Enquiry  was  dire£lly  to  my  Point,  as 
the  Rcfult  of  it  proves  that  the  Morality  of  the  Athcift  muft  be 
without  any  true  Foundation,  and  confequently  weftk  and  eafily 
fhnken.  Yet  it  had  a  further  Propriety,  as  the  Religion,  whofe 
divine  Original  I  was  here  attempting  to  demonftrate,  has  founded 
moral  Obligation  in  IVill  only;  and  a  peculiar  Expediency,  as  it  is 
become  the  Humour  of  the  Times  to  feek  for  this  Foundation  in  aijy 
thing  rather  ihzn  m  ■w\\&l  Religion  places  it.  2.  But  the  Author 
of  the  Fable  of  the  Bees  went  a  large  Step  further,  and  endeavoured 
to  prove  that  Morality  was  fo  far  from  being  neceflary  to  Society, 
that,  on  the  contrary.  It  was  Vice,  not  Virtue,  which  rendered 
States  flourifhing  and  happy.  This  pernicious  Do6trine,  which 
would  cut  away  our  Argument  by  the  Root,  was  inforced  with 
much  laboured  Art  and  plaufible  Infmuation.  I  undertook  therefore 
to  examine  and  confute  the  Principles  it  went  upon  :  which  I 
prefume  to  have  done  fo  efFe£lually,  as  will  fecure  the  Reader 
from  the  Danger  of  being  any  longer  mifled  by  it.  In  this  manner 
I  endeavoured  to  prove  the  major  Propofition  of  the/r/?Syllogifm: 
and,  with  this,  the  frfl  Book  of  The  Divine  Legation  of  Mrfes  con- 
cludes. 

II.  The  fecond  begins  with  proving  the  major  Propofition  of 
the/^ceWSyllogifm,  that  It  tvas  univerfally  believed  by  the  /Indents, 
on  their  common  Principles  of  Legiflation  and  Wifdom,  that  zvhatjoever 
Religion  and  Society  have  no  future  State  for  their  Support,  muji  be 
Jupported  by  an  extraordinary  Providence.  This  Proof  divides  itfelf 
into  t-wo  Parts,  the  ConduS}  of  the  Lawgivers,  and  the  Opinion  of 

the 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS,        3,5 

the  Fh'ilofophers.     T\\e  firji  Part  U  examined  in  the  prefcnt  Book, 
and  ihtfecond  in  the  following. 

In  proving  the  Propofition  from  the  Conduct  of  the  Lawgiversy 
I  fliew,  I.  Their  Care  to  propagate,  Firft,  Religion  in  general. 
I.  As  it  appears  from  the  Reafon  ofThingSy  viz.  the  State  of  Religion 
all  over  the  civilized  World.  2.  As  it  appears  from  Fa5i,  fuch  as 
their  univerfal  Pretence  to  hfpiration ;  which,  it  is  flieu^n,  was 
made  only  to  eftablifh  the  Opinion  of  the  Superintendency  of  the 
Gods  over  human  Affairs  :  And  fuch  as  their  univerfal  Pra£tice  in 
the  manner  of  Prefacing  their  Laws  ;  where  the  fame  Superin- 
tendency was  taught  and  inculcated.  And  here  I  defire  it  may  be 
obferved,  that  the  proving  their  Care  to  propagate  Religion  'in  gcfjc- 
ral,  proves,  at  the  fame  time,  their  propagating  the  Dodlrlne  of  a 
future  State ;  becaufe  there  never  was  any  Religion  in  the  World 
but  the  Jeivifj,  of  which  that  Doftrlne  did  not  make  an  cflcnrhil 
Part.  I  fliew,  Secondly,  their  Care  to  propagate  the  Do^irine  of  a 
future  State  of  Reivards  and  PuniJJjments  in  particular.  And,  as  tlie 
moft  effe£lual  Method  they  employed  to  this  Purpofe  was  the  In- 
ftitution  of  the  Mysteries,  I  give  a  large  Account  of  their  Rife 
and  Progrefs ;  which  I  (hew  to  have  been  from  Egypt  into  Greece. 
The  Dete£lion  of  the  AITOPPHTA  of  thcfe  Myferies,  which  were 
the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  and  the  Error  of  the  gr offer  Polytheifm, 
not  only  confirms  all  that  is  advanced  concerning  the  Rife,  Progrefs, 
and  Order  of  the  feveral  Species  of  Idolatry,  but  redifies  and  clears 
up  much  Embarrafs  and  Mlftake  even  in  the  beft  modern  Critics, 
fuch  as  Cudworth,  Prideaux,  Newton,  &c.  while  they  ventured, 
contrary  to  the  Tenure  of  holy  Scripture,  to  fuppofe  that  the  One 
God  was  commonly  known  and  worshipped  in  the  Pagan  World. 
For  finding  many,  in  divers  Countries,  fpeaking  of  the  one  God, 
they  concluded  he  mufl  needs  have  a  national  Worfliip  paid  to  him; 
though  the  Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Tcftament,  rcpre- 
fent  the  Gentiles  in  a  total  Ignorance  of  the  true  God,  and  entirely 
given  up  to  Polythelfm.-  This,  as  we  fay,  has  occafioned  much 
Confufion  and  Miftake  in  our  beft  Writers  on  this  Subjed,  while 
S  s  2  tiicy 


3,6  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

they  would  reconcile  their  own  Conclullons  to  Scripture  Premifes. 
Now  the  Dilluvcry  of  the  dircppxicc  of  the  Myfteries,  enables  us  to 
explain  the  pcrfcft  Conliacncy  between  facred  and  profane  Anti- 
quity ;  which,  left  to  fpeak  for  theoifelves,  and  without  Interpret- 
ers, inform  us  of  this  plain  and  confiftent  Truth,  "  That  the  Doc- 
'«  t'rinc  of  the  One  God  was  taught  in  all  Places,  as  a  profound 
•*  Secret  to  z  few  in  the  Celebration  of  their  myfterious  Rites ;  but 
•'  tliat  a  public  or  national  JVorJl.up  was  paid  to  him  no  where  but 
"  in  the  Land  oi  Judaa."  Where,  as  Eufebius  well  expreffes  it, 
for  the  Hebrew  PEOPLE  alone  was  referved  the  Honour  of  being 
initiated  into  the  Knowledge  of  the  Creator  of  all  Things.  And,  of 
tliis  Difference,  God  himfelf  fpeaks,  by  the  Prophet,  I  have  fiot 
fpoken  infcret,  in  a  dark  Place  of  the  Earth  ;  I faid  not  unto  the  Seed 
of  Jacob  feek  ye  me  in  vain  "*.  And  the  holy  Apoflle  informs  us  of 
the  Confequence  of  this  myfterious  Manner  of  teaching  the  true 
God,  that  when,  by  this  means,  they  came  to  the  Knowledge  of 
him,  they  glorified  him  not  as  Godi.  To  confirm  my  Account  of 
the  Myfteries,  1  fubjoin  a  critical  Differtation  on  the  fxth  Book  of 
Virgil's  Mneis ;  and  another,  on  the  Metamorphofis  of  Apukius.  The 
firji  of  which  I  prove  to  be  one  continued  Defcription  of  the  Myf- 
teries ;  and  the  fecond,  to  be  written  purpofely  to  recommend  their 
Ufe  and  Efficacy.  But  by  Mifchance  (and  the  only  one  of  this 
kind  in  the  two  Volumes)  the  Diflertatlon  on  Apuleius  is  mlfplaced. 
The  Reader  will  obferve  that,  through  the  Courfc  of  this  whole 
Argument,  on  the  ConduA  of  the  ancient  Lawgivers,  it  appears 
that  all  the  fundamental  Principles  of  their  Policy  were  borrowed 
from  Egypt.  A  Truth  that  will  be  made  greatly  fubfervient  to 
the  Minor  of  my  fecond  Sylloglfm  (that  Mofes  was  filled  in  all  the 
ancient  Legijlation  and  Wifdotn,  and  yet  injlituted  the  Jewif:)  Religion 
and  Society  without  a  future  State  for  its  Support')  as  well  when  I 
prove  the /^//t''"  Part  of  the  Propofition  in  the  fecond  Volume,  as 
the  former  Part,  in  the  Third;  where  the  Charader  of  Mofes  is  vin- 

*  Ifaiah,  xlv,  19.  f  Romans,  i.   21. 

dlcated 


1 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS.       317 

dicated  from  the  Objedions  of  Infidelity.  From  this,  and  from 
what  has  been  fakl  above  oi  moral  Obligation,  the  intelligent  Reader 
will  take  notice,  that  throughout  The  Divine  Legation,  I  have  all 
along  endeavoured  to  feleft  for  my  Purpofe  fuch  kind  of  Arguments, 
in  Support  of  the  particular  Queftion  in  hand,  as  may,  at  the  fame 
time,  either  illuftrate  the  Truth  of  i?fr^/tf//o«  in  general,  or  fcrve 
as  a  Principle  to  proceed  upon  in  the  Pro^r^  of  the  Argument.  Of 
which  we  fhall  give,  as  occafion  ferves,  feveral  further  Inftanccs  in 
the  Courfe  of  this  Review. 

Thus,  having  (hewn  the  Leglflator's  Care  to  propagate  Religion 
in  general,  and  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  in  particular  (in 
which  is  feen  their  Senfe  of  the  infeparable  Connexion  between 
them),  I  go  on,  II.  To  explain  the  Contrivances  they  employed 
to  PERPETUATE  them  :  By  which  it  may  appear  that,  in  their  Opi- 
nion, Religion  was  not  a  temporary  Expedient  to  fecure  their  own 
Power,  but  a  neceflary  Support  of  Civil  Government,  i .  The  firfl 
In  (lance  of  their  Care  to  this  End  was,  as  we  fliew,  the  estab- 
lishing every  where  a  national  Religion  protected  by  the  Laws  of  the 
State.  But  Men  Ignorant  of  true  Religion  could  hardly  avoid  fall- 
ing into  Mlftakesin  the  Mode  of  this  EJidblifmient ;  purfuinga  ri<'ht 
End  by  very  wrong  Means:  Therefore,  as  the  Subjed  of  our  Book 
is  no  idle  unconcerning  Speculation,  but  fuch  as  affcfts  us  in  all  our 
higheft  Interefts  as  Men  and  Citizens,  I  thought  a  Defence  of  the 
Juftice  and  Equity  of  an  established  Religion  would  well 
deferve  the  Reader's  befl  Attention  ;  and  this  I  have  given  him,  in 
an  Explanation  of  the  true  Theory  of  the  Alliance  between  Church  and 
State.  2.  The  fecond  Expedient  the  Legiflator  ufed  iox  perpetuating- 
Religion,  I  (hew  was  the  Allowance  of  a  general  Toleration, 
which,  as  It  would,  for  the  fame  Reafon,  be  as  wrongly  conceived 
as  an  Efablijhment,  I  have  attempted  to  give  the  true  Theory  of  that 
likewife.  Where,  fpeaking  of  the  Caufe  and  firft  Occafion  of  its 
Violation,  the  Subject  naturally  led  me  to  vindicate  true  Religion 
from  the  Afperfions  cf  Infidelity.  And  here  I  fhew  that  the  firft 
Perfecutlon  for  Religion  was  not  that  which  was  committed,  but 

that 


3.8  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

tLuit  wliich  was  undergone,  by  the  Chriftiaa  Church.     And  thus 
f  luls  thcfcconj  Book  of  Tbe  Divine  Legation. 

III.  The  Third  begins  with  the  latter  Part  of  the  Proof  of  the 
MAJOR  Propofition  o(  the Jecond  Syllogifm  ;  namely,  tbe  Opinions  of 
the  PbHoJophers.  For  as  the  great  Wafte  of  Time  hath  deftroyed 
moft  of  tlie  Monuments  of  ancknt  Legijlation,  I  thought  it  proper 
to  fti  cngthen  my  Pofition,  of  the  Senfe  of  their  Lawgivers,  by  that 
of  their  Sages  and  Philofophers.  Where  I  fliew  /;y?,  from  their 
own  Words,  the  Senfe  they  had  in  general  of  the  Neceffity  of  the 
Doclriiie  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments  to  civil 
Society.  But  to  fet  the  Fa£l  in  the  ftrongeft  Light,  I  next  endea- 
vour to  prove,  that  even  thofe  of  them  (namely,  the  feveral  Seds 
of  Grecian  Philofophers)  who  did  not  believe  this  future  State,  yet, 
for  the  Sake  of  Society,  feduloufly  taught  and  propagated  it.  That 
they  taught  it,  is  confefled.  That  they  did  not  believe  it,  was  my 
Bufinefs  to  prove.  Which  I  firfl:  do,  by  the  three  following  general 
Reafons.  i.  That  they  all  thought  it  allowable  to  fliy  one  Thing 
and  think  another.  2.  That  they  perpetually  praftifed  what  they 
thus  profeffed  to  be  lawful.  And,  3,  That  they  pradifed  it  with 
regard  to  the  very  Doctrine  in  Queftion.  To  explain  and  verify 
the  two  firft  of  thefe  Proportions,  I  had  Occafion  to  enquire  into 
the  Rife,  Progrefs,  Perfedion,  Decline,  and  Genius  of  the  ancient 
Greek  Philofophy  under  all  its  feveral  Divifions.  In  which,  as  its 
Rife  and  Genius  are  fhewn  to  have  been  from  Egypt,  we  lay  in  a 
ftill  further  Support  for  the  minor  Propofition  of  the  fecond  Syllo- 
gifm. 

The  Difcourfc  then  proceeds  to  a  particular  Enquiry  into  the 
Sentiments  oi  each  Seft  of  Philofophy  on  this  Point.  Where  it  is 
ftiewn,  from  the  CharaElcr  and  Genius  of  each  School,  and  frona 
the  Writings  of  each  Man,  that  none  of  them  did  indeed  belive  the 
Do£trine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punlfhments.  But, 
from  almoft  every  Argument  brought  for  this  Purpofe,  it,  at  the 
fame  time,  appears  of  how  high  Importance  they  all  thought  it 
to  Society. 

Further, 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  319 

Further,  to  fupport  this  Faft,  I  prove  next,  tliat  thcfe  Philofb- 
phers  not  only  did  not,  but  could  not  poiiibly,  believe  the  Dodlrine 
ot  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments,  becaufe  it  contra- 
dided  two  metaphyfical  Principles  uiiiverfally  held  and  believed  by 
them  concerning  the  Nature  of  God  and  of  the  Soul  ;  which  were, 
that  God  could  not  be  angry  nor  hurt  any  one  ;  iuid  that  the  Soul  zvas 
Ptirto/God,  and  refolved  again  into  him.  In  explaining,  and  ivr/. 
fying  the  Reception  of  this  latter  Principle,  I  take  Occafion  to  fpcak 
of  its  Original;  which  I  (hew  was  Grecian,  and  not  Egyptian,  as 
appears  from  the  different  Genius  and  Charader  of  the  two  Philo- 
fophies  ;  though  the  fpurious  Books  going  under  the  Name  of 
Hermes,  but  indeed  written  by  late  Greek  Platonifts,  would  perfuade 
us  to  believe  the  contrary.  The  ufe  oi  this  Enquiry  likewife  (con- 
cerning the  Origin  of  this  Principle)  will  be  (tan.  when  we  come  to 
clear  up  the  Charavicr  of  Mcfes  as  aforefaid.  But  with  regard  to 
the  general  Queftioii  (concerning  the  Belief  of  the  PhilofophersJ 
befides  the  dlreft  and  principal  ufe  of  it  for  the  Support  of  the  ma- 
jor Propofition  of  the  fecond  Syllogifm,  it  has  (as  I  faid  before  I 
had  contrived  my  Arguments  fhould  have)  two  further  ufes ;  the 
one  toferve  as  a  Principle  in  the  Prggrefs  of  my  Argument ;  the  other 
to  illuflrate  the  "Truth  of  Revelation  in  general.  For,  i.  It  will  fervc 
for  a  fufficient  Anfwer  to  that  Objedion  of  the  Delfts,  to  be  con- 
fidered  in  the  lafl  Volume,  that  Mofes  did  not  propagate  the  DoSlrine 
of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifmients,  hecaife  he  did  not  belie've 
it :  It  being  fliewn,  from  FaB,  that  the  not  believing  a  Doftrine, 
fo  ufeful  to  Society,  was  efleemed  no  Reafon  why  the  Legiflator 
(hould  not  propagate  it.  2.  It  is  a  very  ftrong  Proof  of  the  Necef- 
fity  of  the  Gofpel  oifcfus,  that  the  Sages  of  Greece,  with  whom 
all  the  Wifdom  of  the  World  was  fuppofed  to  be  depofited,  had//:;/- 
lofophifed  themfelves  out  of  one  of  the  moft  evident  and  ultful 
Truths  with  which  Mankind  is  concerned.  Ncr  need  we  feek  any 
other  Juftification  of  the  Severity  with  which  the  holy  Apoftles 
always  fpeak  of  the  Philofophers  or  Philofophy  of  Greece,  than  ibis, 
the  Ihewing  it  was  direfted  againft  thefe  pernicious  Principles  ;  and 

not. 


3J0  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

tjot,  as  both  Dei/Is  and  Fanatics  have  concurred  to  rcprefent  It,  a 

Condemnation  of  human  Learning  in  general. 

But  as  now  it  might  be  objeaed  that,  by  this  Reprefentation,  we 
lole  on  the  one  hand  what  we  gain  on  the  other ;  and  that  while 
we  Oiew  the  Nc'cefih  of  the  Gofpcl,  we  run  a  rifque  of  difcrediting 
its  Rcafjnablcnefs :  For  that  nothing  can  feem  to  bear  harder  upoa 
this,  than  that  the  beft  and  wifeft  Perfons  of  Antiquity  did  not 
believe  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments :  as  this,  I  fay, 
might  be  objeded,  wc  have  given  a  full  Anfwer  to  it ;  and,  to 
fupport  our  Anfwer,  (hewn,  that  the  two  Extremes  of  this  Repre- 
fentation, which  Divines  have  been  accuflomed  to  go  into  by  con- 
trary Ways,  are  attended  with  great  and  real  Mifchief  to  Revela- 
tion. While  the  only  View  of  Antiquity,  which  yields  folid  Ad- 
vantage to  the  Chrijiian  Caufe,  is  fuch  a  one  as  this  here  given  ; 
fuch  a  one  as  fliews  natural  Reafon  to  be  dear  enough  to  percehe 
Trutii,  and  the  Neceflity  of  its  Dedu6tions  when  propofed  ;  but 
not  gcntrallv  ftrong  enough  to  difcover  it,  and  draw  right  Deduc- 
tions from  It.  And  we  prefume  the  ObjeSiors  may  allow  this  to  be 
the  true,  as  we  have  Cicero  himfelf  for  our  Warrant,  who  with 
an  Ingenuity  becoming  his  profound  Knowledge  of  hun^an  Nature 
thus  declfwely  exprefles  himfelf  :  "  Nam  neque  tam  eft  acris  acies 
"  in  naturls  hominum  et  ingeniis,  ut  res  tantas  quifquam,  nifi 
"  monftratas,  poffit  vldere;  neque  tanta  tamen  in  rebus  obfcuritas, 
"  ut  eas  non  peritus  acri  vir  Ingenio  cernat,  fi  modo  adfpexerit*." 
In  explaining  this  Matter,  it  is  occafionally  (hewn  that  of  the  ancient 
and  modern  Svftems  of  deijiical  Morality,  the  confefledly  fuperior 
Perfedtion  in  the  latter  is  entirely  owing  to  the  unacknowledged  A\di 
of  Revelation. — Thus  the  Reader  fees  in  what  manner  we  have  en- 
deavoured to  prove  the  Major  Propofitions  of  the  two  Syllogifms, 
that  whatfoever  Religion  and  Society  have  no  future  State  for  their  Sup- 
port, mufl  be  fupport  ed  by  an  extraordinary  Providence:  And  that 
this  ivas  univerfally  believed  by  the  Ancients,' on  their  common  Principles 

*  De  Orat.  1.  iii.  c.  xxxi. 

of 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS..         y.i 

ttf  Leg'ijlation  ayid  Wifdom.  For,  having  fliewn  that  Religion  and 
Society  were  unable,  and  believed  to  be  unable,  to  iupport  themftlves 
under  an  ordinary  Providence  without  a  future  State  ;  if  they  ivere 
fupported  without  that  Dodlrine,  it  could  be,  and  could  be  believed  to 
be,  only  by  an  extraordinary  Providence. 

But  now,  as  this  Proof  is  conduced  through,  a  long  Detail  of 
Circumftances,  fhewing  the  abjolute  NecfJJity  of  Religion  in  general 
to  Civil  Society,  and  the  Serje  which  all  the  Wife  and  Learned  of 
Antiquity  had  of  that  Necefiity  ;  left  this  fliould  be  abufed  to  coun- 
tenance the  idle  and  impious  Conceit,  that  Religion  was  the  Inven- 
tion of  Politicians,  I  concluded  the  third  Book  and  the  Volume  to- 
gether, with  proving,  that  the  Notion  is  both  impertinent  and  falfe. 
Impertinent,  for  that,  were  this  Account  of  Religion  right,  it  would 
not  follow  that  Religion  itfelf  was  vifionary ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
that  it  was  moft  real,  and  fupported  on  the  eternal  Relations  of 
Things  :  Falfe,  for  that  Religion,  in  facft,  exifted  before  the  Civil 
Magijivate  was  in  being.  But  my  End  In  this  was  not  barely  to  re- 
move an  Objedion  agalnfl  the  Truths  here  delivered  ;  but  to  prepare 
an  opening  for  thofe  which  were  to  follow.  For  if  Religion  were 
fo  ufeful  to  Society,  and  yet  not  the  Invention  of  the  Magiftrate, 
we  muft  feek  its  Origin  in   another  Quarter  :  either  from  Nature, 

or  Revelation^  or  both. Such   is  the  Subjedl  of  the  frjl  Volume 

of  The  Divine  Legation:  Which,  as  I  thought  proper  to  publifh  fe- 
parately,  I  contrived  fliould  not  only  contain  P^?-/  of  that  Proof, 
but  likewife  be  a  conipleat  Treatife  of  itfelf,  eftablifhing  one  of  the 
moft  important  Truths  with  which  w^e  have  to  do,  viz.  The  Necef- 
fiy  of  Religion  for  the  Support  of  Civil  Government.  And  If,  In  this 
View,  I  have  been  more  than  ordinary  minute,  while  treating  fome 
Capital  Articles  in  Support  of  that  Qucftion,  I  prcfume  I  fliiUl  not 
want  the  Reader's  Pardon. 

II. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legation', 

which  is  employed  in  proving  the  minor  Propofitions  of  the   two 

Vol.  VI.      '  T  C  Syllo- 


322        REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Syllogifms;  the  firft,  That  the  "^cwijh  Religion  and  Society  had  no 
future  State  for  their  Support  ;  the  other,  That  Mofes,  Jkilled  in  all 
the  ancient  Legijlation  and  JVifdom,  inptuted  the  JewiJIi  Religion 
and  Society  without  a  future  St  ate  for  its  Support.  But  in  proving  the 
Minor,  a  Method  fomething  different  from  that  obferved  in  prov- 
ing the  MAJOR  Propofitlons  was  to  be  followed.  The  major,  in 
the  firft  Volume,  were  proved  fucceffively,  and  in  their  Order  ;  but 
in  this,  the  minor  Propofitions  are  inforced  all  the  Way  together: 
And  this,  from  the  Reafon  of  the  Thing;  the  Fads  brought  to  prove 
th--  Doarine  omitted,  at  the  fame  time,  accidentally  (hew  the  Omif- 
fion  dedgned;  and  the  Fads,  brought  to  prove  it  defigned,  ne- 
cejfarilv  fiicw  it  omitted.  To  proceed  therefore  with  the  Subj'ed  of 
the fecond  Volume. 

IV.  I  juft  before  obferved,  that  the  Conclufion  of  the  firfl  Vo- 
lume, which  detected  the  j^bfurdity  and  Fa'Jity  of  the  atheiftic 
Principle,  that  Religion  was  a  Creature  of  the  State,  opened  the  Way 
to  a  fair  Inquiry  whether  its  original  were  not  as  well  from  Reve- 
lation as  from  natural  Reafon. 

In  the  latrodudion  therefore  to  this  Volume,  I  took  the  Ad- 
vantage which  that  Open  afforded  me,  of  flicwing  that  the  univer- 
fal  Pretence  to  Revelation  proves  fotne  Revelation  mufl  be  true  : 
That  this  true  Revelation  muft:  have  fome  charaSleriflc  Marks  to  di- 
ftinguilh  it  from  the  falfe  :  And  that  thefe  Marks  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Inftitution  of  Alofes.  But  thus  far  only  by  Way  of  Intro- 
du^ion,  and  to  lead  the  Reader  more  eafily  into  the  main  Road  of 
our  Inquiry;  by  fhewing  him  that  we  purfued  no  defperate  Adven- 
ture while  we  endeavoured  to  deduce  the  Divinity  oi  Mofes'' s  Law 
from  the  Circumf1:ances  of  the  Law  itfelf. 

I  proceeded  then  to  the  Proof  of  the  Minor  Propofitions,  That 
the  fcjoip  Religion  and  Society  had  no  future  State  for  their  Support ; 
and  that  their  Laitgiver  furpofely  omitted  it.  To  evince  thefe  Truths, 
with  fufficlent  Evidence,  the  Nature  of  that  Inflitution  was  to  be 
well  underftood.  But  to  form  a  right  Idea  of  that,  it  was  expe- 
dient 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  5- 

dlent  we  fliould  know  the  Manmrs  and  Genius  of  the  Hebrew  Peo- 
ple, and  the  CharaSler  and  /Abilities  of  their  Lawgiver.  Now  thefe 
having  been  entirely  fafliioned  on  Egyplian  Models,  it  was  further 
expedient  we  fhould  know  the  Slate  of  Egyptian  Superjtition  and 
Learning  in  thofe  early  Ages. 

In  order  to  this,  therefore,  I  firfl;  advanced  this  Propofition,  That 
the  Egyptian  Learning  celebrated  in  Scripture,  and  the  Egyptian  Su- 
per/lit ion  there  condemned,  were  the  very  Learning  and  Superjlition  re- 
prefented  by  the  Greek  Writers,  as  the  Honour  and  Opprobrium  of  that 
Kingdom.  Where,  I  firfl  flate  the  Queftion,  and  fhew  the  equal 
Extravagancies  of  both  Parties  in  unreafonably  advancing  or  de- 
prefling  the  high  Antiquity  of  Egypt. 

I  then  fupport  my  Propofilion,  firfl  by  FaB,  the  Teflimony  of 
holy  Scripture,  and  of  the  ancient  Greek  Writers  fct  together,  and 
fupporting  one  another. 

Secondly  by  Reafon,  in  an  Argument  deduced  from  the  Nature, 
Origin,  and  various  Ufe,  of  their  fo  famed  Hieroglyphics. 
Where  it  Is  fhewn,  i.  That  thefe  were  employed  as  the  fole  Vehicle 
of  Egyptian  Learning  even  after  the  Invention  of  Letters.  For 
which  no  good  Reafon  can  be  affigned  but  this,  that  they  were 
employed  to  the  fame  Purpofe,  before.  Now  Letters  were  in  ufe 
in  the  Time  of  Mofcs.  2.  Agauj,  it  is  further  fliewn  that  the 
Onirocritics  borrowed  their  Art  of  Deciphering  from  hieroglyphic 
Symbols.  But  hieroglyphic  Symbols  were  the  myfterious  Vehicle  of 
the  Egyptian  Learning  and  Theology.  Now  Onirocritic,  or  tlie 
Art  of  Interpreting  Dreams,  was  pradtifed  in  the  Time  of  Jojeph. 
3.  And  again,  that  hieroglyphic  Symbols  were  the  true  Original  of 
ANIMAL  Worship  in  Egypt.  Now  animal  Worjhip  was  eflablifhcd 
before  the  Times  of  Mfes.  From  all  this  it  appears  that  Egxpt 
was  of  that  high  Antiquity,  which  Scripture  and  the  beil  Greek 
Writers  reprel'ent  it.  By  which  we  come  to  underftand  what 
>iWere  the  fpeclflc  Manners  and  Superflitions  oi  Egypt  in  the  Time 
of  Mofes ;  they  being,  as  now  appears,  identically  the  lame  with 
T  t  2  u  liat. 


374  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

what  the  Gretk  Writers  have  delivered  to  lis.  In  the  Courfe  of 
this  Proof  from  Reafon,  in  opti)iiig  at  large  the  Nature,  Origin, 
and  various  Kinds  of  Ecrvp/ian  Hiercglyphics,  I  interweave  (as  tlie 
neccflhry  Explanation  of  my  Subjca  retjuired)  a  detailed  Hiftory  of 
the  various  Moiks  of  ancient  I'lfotmaUon  by  Speech  and  Action.  A-s 
(on  the  (lime  Account)  in  the  Original  oi  Brule-JVcrJJ:ip,  I  give  the 
Hirtory  of  tlie  various  Modes  of  ancient  Idolatry  in  the  Order  they 
arofe  out  of  one  another.  Now  thefe  I  have  not  only  made  to  fervc 
in  Support  of  the  Qiicftion  1  am  here  upon  ;  but  likevvile  in  Sup- 
port of  Tifulurd,  and  a  pafi.  For,  in  this  Hiftory  of  the  various 
Modes  cf  ancient  Information  was  laid,  as  the  Reader  will  tind,  the 
Foundation  of  my  Difcourfe  on  the  N:itiire  cf  ancient  Prophecies^ 
in  the  ya/A  Book;  tlie  Connexion  of  which  Difcourfe  with  my 
tnain  Subjecl,  and  its  high.  Importance  to  Rcliglcu  in  general,  will  be 
explained  when  we  come  to  that  Place :  And,  in  the  Hiilory  of  the 
-carious  Modes  of  ancient  Idolatry,  he  may  fee  my  Reafoning  in  the 
latter  End  of  the  third  Book,  againft  the  Atheiftic  Origin  of  Reli- 
gion, fupported  and  confirmed.  So  ftudious  have  we  been  to  ob- 
fervc  what  a  great  Mafter  of  Reafon  lays  down  as  the  Rule  and 
'Tijl  of  good  Difpofition,  that  every  former  Part  may  give  Strength 
unto  all  thai  folloiv  ;  and  every  latter  bring  Light  unto  ail  before. 

But  the  high  Antiquity  of  Egypt,  though  proved  from  Antiquity 
jtfelf,  feem'd  not  enough  fecured  while  the  Authority  of  one  great 
Modern  remained  entire  and  unanfwered.  In  the  next  Place,  there- 
fore, I  ventured  to  examine  Sir  /.  Neivtons  Chronology  of  the  Egyp- 
tian Empire,  as  it  is  founded  in  the  fuppofed  Identity  of  OJiris  and 
Sefofris ;  which  I  (hew  not  only  contradi£l3  all  profane,  but,  what 
is  more,  all /zcr^^  Antiquity  ;  and,  flill  more,  the  very  Nature  of 
Things.  In  the  Courfe  of  this  Confutation,  the  Caufes  of  that  end- 
lefs  Confufioii  in  the  ancient  Greek  Hfory  and  Mythology  are  in- 
quired into  and  explained;  which  ferves,  at  the  fame  time,  to  con- 
firm and  illuftrate  all  that  hath  been  faid,  occafionally  in  the  frjl--. 
\'olume,  concerning  the  Origin  and  Progrefs  of  Idolatry,  the  Ge-f 

niu   : 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         ^i^ 

nius  of  Pagan  Religion,  their  Modes  of  Wori'nip,  and  their  theolo- 
gical Opinions. 

Thus  far  concerning  the  /ji\h  Antiquity  of  Egypt.  Whicli,  be- 
fides  the  immediate  Purpofe,  of  leading  us  into  a  truo  Idea  of  the 
Jeiui/h  Inftitution,  hath  thefe  further  Uks.  We  have  fcen,  in 
the  foregoing  Volume,  that  Egypt,  as  it  was  moft  famed  for  the 
Arts  of  Legiflation,  fo  it  mod:  of  all  inculcated  the  Doctrine  of  a 
future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punishments.  Now  if  Egvpt  were  of 
the  high  Antiquity  I  contend  for,  the  DoiStrine  was  inculcated  ia 
the  Time  ot  the  Hebrew  Captivity  :  the  IJraelites  therefore  who 
lived  lo  long  in  Egypt,  and  iiad  fo  thorougly  imbibed  the  religious 
Notions  of  the  Place,  mu-il:  needs  have  been  much  prejudiced  in  fa- 
vour of  fo  reafonable  and  flattering  a  Dodlrine  :  and,  confequently, 
their  Lawgiver,  who  had  been  bred  up  in  all  the  Learning  of 
IZgypt,  if  he  had  atled  only  by  human  DiretStion,  mufl  needs,  in 
Imitation  of  his  jVLifters,  have  taken  Advantage  of  this-  favourable 
Prejudice  to  make  the  Do6lrine  of  a  future  State  the  grand  Saii^ion 
of  his  Religion  and  Law.  Again,  the  Proof  of  th.e  high  Antiquity 
(}f  E^^'/'/ was  a  neceffary  Vindication  of. Sacred  Scripture;  which 
all  along  declares  for  that  Antiquity.  But  which  the  Dcifl  havinp- 
endeavoured  to  take  Advantage  of  againft  AIrfi-s''s  CXmiw  to  Infpi- 
ration,  Believers  were  grown  not  unwilling  to  explain  away.  And 
while  this  Chronology  offered  itfelf  to  fupportthe  Bible  Divinit\\ 
they  feemed  little  attentive  to  the  Liberties  it  took  with  the  Bible 
Hfory. 

To  proceed  :  In  order  to  brnig  on  tliis  Truth  of  the  high  Anti- 
quity oi  Egypt  nearer  to  my  Purpofe,  I  next  advanced  X.\\\s  fecoiid 
Propofition,  That  //j^  Jewifh  People  were  extremely  fond  2/ Egyp<- 
tian  Manners,  and  did  frequently  fall  into  Egyptian  Superfjions  :. 
And  that  many  of  the  Laws  given  to  them  by  the  Minfry  of 
Mofes  were  inflituted  partly  in  Compliance  to  their  Prejudices,  and 
partly  in  Oppoftion  to  thofe  Supcrfiitions.  Through  the  Proof  of 
the  firf  part  of  the  Propofition  was  propofed  to  be  fliewn  tlie 
high  Probability  of  an  Inftitution  formed  with  Reference  to  Egyp- 
tian. 


326  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
tiin  Manners:  and  through  the  Proof  of  the/roW,  a  Demonftra- 
tion  that  it  was.  In  F.;^,  fo  formed.  In  the  Progrefs  of  this  Ar- 
gument is  given  an  hiaorical  Account  of  the  amazing  Perverfity  of 
the  Jiivijh  People,  from  the  Time  of  Mofes's  firft  Miffion,  to  their 
Settlement  in  the  Land  of  Canaan.  Which  ferves  not  only  to  evince 
the  Fad  we  are  here  upon,  their  Fondnefs  for  Egyptian  Manners-, 
but  to  prove  (what  will  ftand  us  in  ftead  hereafter),  that  a  People 
\o  obftinate  and  headftrong  needed,  in  the  Inftitution  of  their 
civil  Government  and  Religion,  all  pofiible  Curbs  to  Diforder ;  of 
which,  for  this  end,  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  was  ever  held 
the  chief  in  ancient  Policy. 

But  now,  as  it  might  be  obje(5led,  that  while  I  am  endeavouring 
to  get,  this  Way,  into  the  Interior  of  the  JewiJJ:)  Conftitution,  I 
open  a  Door  to  the  Ravages  of  Infidelity  ;  it  was  thought  necef- 
fary,  in  order  to  prevent  their  taking  Advantage  of  the  great 
Truth  contained  under  the  laft  Propofuion,  to  guard  it  by  the  two 
following, 

FirJ},  That  Mofes's  Egyptian  Learning,  and  the  Laws  inf  tuted 
in  Compliance  to  the  People's  Prejudices,  and  in  Oppojition  to  Egyp- 
tian Superjiitions,  are  no  reafonable  ObjeSlion  to  the  Divinity  of  his 
Miffion.  Where,  in  anfwering  an  Obje£lion  to  the  Proof  of  the 
firfl  Part  of  this  Propofuion,  I  had  Occafion  to  explain  the  Nature 
and  Origin  of  the  Schools  of  the  Prophets:  Which,  the  Reader  will 
find  of  this  further  Ufe,  to  give  Strength  and  Support  to  what  is 
faid,  in  theyj".v//j  Book,  oi  \.\\q  Nature  of  Prophefy;  and  particularly 
to  what  is  remarked  of  Grotius" s  Miftakes  in  his  Manner  of  inter- 
preting them.  And,  after  having  eftablifhed  the  Vxooi  oi  xht  fecond 
Part,  from  the  Nature  of  Things,  I  examine  all  the  Arguments 
which  have  been  urged  to  the  contrary,  by  the  learned  Herman 
Witfius,  in  iiis  Mgypliaca,  as  that  Book  had  been  publicly  recom- 
mended, for  a  difindi  and  folid  Confutation  o/"  Spencer,  De  Legibus 
Hi  bra  or  um  ritualibus. 

Bac 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  327 

But  I  go  further  in  the  feconci  Propofilion  ;  and  prove,  that  thefe 
very  Circunijiances  of  Mofcs's  Egyptian  Learning,  and  the  Laws  in- 
J} i tilted  in  Compliance  to  the  People's  Prejudices ,  and  in  Oppojition  to 
Egyptian  Superjiitions,  are  a  Jlrong  Confirmation  of  the  Divinity  of 
his  Mifjion  ;  For,  that  one,  bred  up  in  the  Arts  oi  F.gyptian  Legif- 
lation,  could  never,  on  his  own  Head,  have  thought  of  reducing 
an  unruly  People  to  Government  on  Maxims  of  Religion  and  Po- 
licy fundamentally  oppofite  to  all  the  Principles  of  Egyptian  Wif- 
dom.  And  yet  Mofes  did  this,  in  enjoining  the  Worfhip  of  the  true 
God  only  ;  and,  in  omitting  the  Do<flrine  of  a  future  State.  And 
again,  that  One  whofalfely  pretended  to  Infpiration,  and  to  receive 
the  whole  Frame  of  a  national  Conftitution  from  God  himfelf, 
would  never  have  rifqued  his  Pretences  by  a  ritual  Law,  which 
the  People  could  fee  was  politically  inftituted,  partly  in  Compliance 
to  their  Prejudices,  and  paitly  in  Oppofition  to  E^^y/!*//^;;  Supeifti- 
tions.     And  with  this  theyoz^r//6  Book  concludes. 

V.  What  hath  been  hitherto  faid  was  to  let  u?,  in  general  ouly-y 
into  the  Genius  of  the  fcwifl)  Policy  ;  in  order  to  o\)r  judging  more 
exactly  oi  \\\q,  peculiar  Nature  oi'xts  Government;  that  from  thence, 
wc  might  be  enabled  to  determine,  with  full  Certainty,  on  the 
Matters  in  Queftion,  as  they  are  contained  in  the  two  >>iinor  Pro- 
pofitions. 

^\\t fifth  Book,  therefore,  corner  fi ill  nearer  to  the  Point,  and 
conliders  this  peculiar  Nature  of  the  fewifi  Government.  Which 
is  (hewn  to  have  been  a  Theocracy,  properly  fo  culled,  where 
God  himfelf  became  the  fupreme  civil  Magiflrate.  This  Form  of 
Government  is  fhewn  to  have  been  necejjary  for  the  Times*  In 
proving  which,  the  Law  of  punifi/mg  for  Opinions,  under  a  Theo- 
cracy, is  occafionally  explained.  And  as  the  Deijls  have  been  accuf- 
tomed  to  objed  this  Puni(hment  againft  the  divine  Original  of  the 
Law,  it  is  juftified  at  large,  on  the  Principles  of  natural  Equity  : 
Which  ferves,  at  the  fame  time,  both  to  confirm  the  Reality  of  a. 

Theocrncy^ 


3i8         REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 
Theocracy,  and  alfo  to  give  new  Strength  and  Support  to  what  had 
been  (aid  on  the  Subjeft  of  Toleration,  in  thcfrjl  Volume. 

2.  This  Theocracy,  whicli  was  neccjary^  was  (as  I  then  fliew 
from  the  Notions  and  Opinions  of  thofe  Times  concerning  Tutelary 
Dtitit's)  of  the  mod:  ea/y  Introdu£iion  likewife.  But  here,  fpeaking 
of  the  Metliod  of  Providence  in  employing  the.  Prejudices  of  Men 
to  the  great  Ends^  of  its  Difpenfations,  I  obferve,  that  whenever 
divine  Wifdom  thought  fit  fo  to  do,  it  was  always  accuftomed  to 
infert  fome  charaftcriftic  Note  of  Ditference,  to  mark  the  Inftitu- 
tion,  it  eftablifhed,  for  its  own  :  which  leading  me  to  enumerate 
fomc  of  thofe  Notes,  I  infixed  chiefly  upon  this,  *',that  the  Mo^/V 
*'  Religion  wns  built  upon  a  former,  namely,  the  Patriarchal : 
*'  Whereas  the  various  ReHgions  of  the  Pagan  World  were  all  mi" 
*'  related  to,  and  independent  of  one  another^''  As  this  was  a  Circum- 
flance  neceflarily  to  be  well  underflood  for  a  perfedl  Comprehcn- 
fion  of  the  Jewijlj  Eftablifhment  (the  Subje£l  in  hand),  I.  took  the 
Advantage  which  the  celebrated  Author  oj  the  Grounds  and  Reofns 
of  the  ChrijUan  Religion  had  afforded  me,  (who,  to  difcredit  /vVw- 
lation,  has  thought  fit  to  aflfirm  the  diredl  contrary)  of  lupporting  it 
againft  him  in  an  Examination  of  his  Facls  and  Reafunings  on  this 
Head. 

3.  I  proceed,  in  the  next  Place,  to  fhew,  that  thofe  Prejudices 
which  made  the  Introdudiion  of  a  Theocracy  fo  eafy,  occafioned  as 
eafy  a  Defe^ion  from  the  Laws  of  it.  lu  which  I  had  Occafion  to 
explain  the  Nature  of  the  Worflilp  of  tutelary  Gods,  and  of  that  Ido- 
latry wherewith  the  Jcwif:  People  were  fo  obftinately  befotted. 
Both  which  Difcourfes  ferve  thefe  further  Purpofes,  the  former,  to 
fupport  and  explain  what  had  been  faid,  in  tYiefrJl  Volume,  con^ 
cerning  the  Genius  of  Pagan  Intercommunity  of  Worfhip  :  And  the 
latter  (bcfides  a  particular  Ufe  to  be  made  of  it  in  the  third  Volume") 
to  obviate  a  common  Objeclion  of  Unbelievers;  who, 'from  this 
Cncumflance  of  the  continual  Defeflion  of  the  Jews  into  Idola- 
try,   would  infer,    that  God's   Dlfpenlation   to  them  could  never 

have 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.      329 

have  been  fo  illuftrious  as  their  Hiftory  reprcfcnts  it  :  Thcfc  Men 
I'uppofing  that  this  Idolatry  confided  in  refioujic'mg  the  Law  oi Mofes  ; 
and  renouncing  it  ^sdijattsjiedofits  Truth:  Both  which  Suppofitions 
are  here  fhewu  to  be  falfc. 

Having  explained  the  Nature  of  the  Theocracy^  and  the  attendant 
Clrciimjiances  of  its  Erection  ;  we  then  inquire  concerning  its  Dura- 
t'lon.  A  Theocracy^  therefore,  in  ftrift  Truth  and  Propriety,  we 
(hew,  continued  throughout  the  whole  Period  of  the  Jew'tp  State, 
even  to  the  Coming  of  Chriji.  The  Ufe  to  be  made  hereafter  of 
this  Truth,  is  to  inforce  the  Connexion  between  the  two  Religions ; 
a  Circumftance,  though  much  negledled,  incumbent  on  every  ra- 
tional Defender  of  Revelation  to  fupport. 

We  come  next  to  the  peculiar  Confequcnces  attending  the  Adminif- 
tration  of  a  Theocracy:  Which  bring  us  yet  nearer  to  our  Point. 
Here,  it  is  fhewn  that  one  necejjary  Confequence,  was  an  extraor- 
dinary Providence.  And  agreeably  to  this,  (as  deduced  from 
the  Nature  of  Things  J  tiiat  holy  Scripture  does  in  FaSl  exhibit 
to  us  this  very  Reprefentation  of  God's  Government :  And  further, 
that  there  are  many  favourable  Circumftances,  in  the  CharaBer  of 
the  Jewifj  People,  to  induce  a  candid  Examiner  to  conclude  this 
Reprefentation  true.  Though  here  the  Reader  fhould  obferve,  that 
my  Argument  does  not  require  me  to  prove  more,  in  this  place, 
than  that  an  extraordinary  Providence  is  reprefented  in  Scripture,  to 
be  adminiftered  :  The  Proof  of  its  real  Adminiftration  it  13  the  Pur- 
pofe  of  this  Work  to  give  through  the  great  Medium  of  my  Thefes, 
the  Omijfion  of  the  DoBrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  PunifJ}' 
mcnts.  If  therefore  I  clearly  fliew,  from  the  whole  j^^^xy^  Hiftory, 
that  the  Matter  is  thus  reprefented^  the  Inference  from  my  Medium^ 
which  proves  the  Reprefentation  true,  anfwers  all  Obje£lions,  both 
as  to  our  inadequate  Conception  of  the  Manner  how  fuch  a  Provi- 
dence could  be  adminiftered  ;  and  as  to  certain  Paffiigcs  in  holy 
Scripture  that  feem  to  clafli  with  this  its  general  Reprefentation.  And 
yet  both  thefe  Obje£lions  (to  leave  no  Shadow  of  Doubt  unfatisficd) 

Vol.  VI.  U  u  arc 


330  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

arc  confidered  likewife  :  But  as  important  as  this  Fad,  of  an  extra- 
ordinary Providence  r^prefented,  is,  even  to  oX^r  prefent  Purpofe,  it 
has  a  ftill  farther  Ufe  when  employed  amongft  thofe  diftinguifhing 
Marks  of  the  Truth  of  Mofes's  divine  Milfion  in  general.  For, 
from  hence,  we  may  obferve,  the  unneceflary  Trouble  and  Hazard 
to  which  he  expofed  himfelf,  had  that  Miffion  been  only  pretended. 
Had  he,  like  tlie  reft  of  the  ancient  Lawgivers,  done  no  more  than 
barely  atftcled  Injpiralion^  he  had  then  no  occafion  to  propagate 
the  Belief  of  a  conjl.mt  equal  Providence  ;  a  Difpenlation,  if  only 
feigned,  fo  eafy  to  be  confuted.  But,  by  deviating  from  their  ge- 
neral Praftice,  and  perfuading  the  People,  that  the  infpirlng  tutelary 
God  would  become  their  King^  he  laid  himfelf  under  a  Necefiity 
of  teaching  an  extraordinary  Providence  ;  and  perpetually  infifting 
on  it  as  the  great  Sanftion  of  his  Laws  ;  a  dead  Weight,  if  he 
were  an  Impoftor,  that  nothing  but  downright  Folly  could  have 
brought  him  to  undergo. 

To  proceed,  after  having  laid  this  ftrong  and  neceffiiry  Founda- 
tion, we  come  at  length  directly  to  our  Point.  Ifthey^w?/^ 
Government  were  a  Theocracy,  it  was  adminiftered  by  an  extraordi- 
nary Providence  ;  the  Confequence  of  which  is,  that  temporal  Re- 
wards and  Punijlments  (the  EfFeds  of  this  Providence)  and  not  Fu- 
ture, were  the  Sanction  of  their  Law  and  Religion.  Thus  far 
therefore  hath  the  very  Nature  of  the  Jewifi  Government  brought 
us.  And  this  methinks  is  bringing  us  fairly  up  to  the  Proof  of  our 
two  MINOR  Propofitions.  So  neceflary,  as  the  reader  now  fees,  was 
this  long  Difcourfe  of  the  Nature  of  the  Jewifli  Government.  But, 
to  prevent  all  Cavil,  I  go  further ;  and  fhew,  that  the  Doftrine  of 
^  future  Slate  of  Rewards  and  Punifhments,  which  could  not,, 
from  the  Nature  of  Things,  be  the  SanSlion  of  the  Law,  ijaas  not^ 
in  fad,  taught  in  it  at  all;  but  purpofely  omitted  by  their  great 
Prophet.  This  is  proved  from  feveral  Circumftances  in  the  Books 
oiGenefs  and  the  Law.  Where,  to  fhew,  that  Mofes,  who,  it  is 
feen,  fudioufly  omitted  it,  was  well  apprifed  of  its  Importance,  I 
prove  that  the  Punijlment  of  Children  for  the  Crimes  of  their  Parents 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  331 

was  brought  Into  this  Inftitutioii  purpofely  to  fupply  fomc  Advan- 
tages to  Government,  which  the  Do6lrlne  Q>i?i  future  State  aflbrds. 
This,  at  the  fame  time  that  it  further  fupports  tlie  Opinion  of  no 
future  State  in  the  Mofaic  Difpenfition,  gives  me  a  fair  Occafion  of 
vindicating  the  Juftlce  and  Equity  of  the  Law,  of  punifJjing  Children 
for  the  Crimes  of  their  Parents  ;  and  proving  the  perfect  Agreement 
between  Mofes  and  the  Prophets  concerning  It :  Which  had  been, 
in  all  Ages,  the  Stumbling-block  of  Infidelity. 

But  we  go  yet  further,  and  fhew,  that,  as  Mofes  forbore  to  teach 
the  Do»5lrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  PunKhments,  fo 
neither  had  the  ancient  Jews,  that  is  to  fay,  the  Body  of  the  Peo- 
ple, any  Knowledge  of  it.  The  Proof  is  ftrlking,  and  fcarce  to 
be  refitted  by  any  Party  or  Profeflion  but  the  Syf  em-maker'' s.  The 
Bible  contains  a  very  circumftantlal  Hiftory  of  this  People  from  the 
Time  of  Mofs  to  the  great  Captivity.  Not  only  of  public  Occur- 
rences, but  the  private  Adventures  of  Perfons  of  both  Sexes,  and 
of  all  Ages  and  Stations,  of  all  Charaders  and  Complexions  ;  in 
the  Lives  of  Virgins,  Matrons,  Kings,  Soldiers,  Scholars,  Priefts, 
Merchants,  Hufbandmen.  They  are  given  too  in  every  Circuna- 
ftance  of  Life,  vldtorious,  captive,  fick,  and  In  Health  ;  in  full 
Security  and  amidft  impending  Dangers  ;  plunged  in  civil  Bufinefs, 
or  retired  and  fequeftered  in  the  Service  of  Religion.  Together 
with  their  Story,  we  have  their  Conipojitions  likewlfe.  Here  they 
fing  their  Triumphs  ;  there  their  Palinodla  :  Here  they  offer  up 
their  Hymns  of  Praife  and  Petitions  to  the  Deity  ;  here  they  urge 
their  moral  Precepts  to  their  Countrymen  ;  and  here  again  they 
treafure  up  their  Prophecies  and  Predidlons  for  Poilerlty  :  Yet  in 
none  of  thefe  different  Clrcumftances  of  Lite,  in  none  of  thefe  va- 
rious Cafts  of  Compofition,  do  we  ever  find  them  adlng  on  the 
Motives,  or  influenced  by  the  Profpedt  of  xi  future  State  ;  or  indeed 
exprefling  the  leaft  Hopes  or  Fdars,  or  even  common  Curiofty  con- 
cerning it :  But  every  thing  they  do  or  fay  refpefts  the  prefent 
Life  only  ;  the  Good  and  111  of  which  are  the  folc  Obje^Sts  of  all 
U  u  2  their 


332  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

tliclr  Piirfiilts  and  Averfions  *.  And  here  I  will  appeal  to  my  Ad- 
vcrlaries  thcmlelves.  Let  them  fpcak,  and  tell  me,  if  they  were 
now  firft  fliewn  Come  Hirtory  of  an  old  Greek  Republic,  delivered 
in  the  Form  and  Manner  of  the  JewrJIj,  and  no  more  Notice  in  it 
of  a  future  State,  whether  they  could  pofTibly  believe  that  that  Doc- 
trine was  national,  or  generally  known  in  it.  If  they  have  the  Icaft 
Ingenuity,  they  will  anlwer,  they  could  not.  On  what  then  do  they 
fupport  their  Belief  iiere  but  on  religious  Prejudices  ?  Prejudices  of 
no  higher  an  Original  neither  than  fome  Dutch  or  German  Syftem  : 
For,  as  to  the  Bible^  one  half  of  it  is  filent  concerning  Lije  and 
Immortality;  and  the  other  half  declares  the  Do£lrines  were  brought 
to  light  through  the  Gofpeh,  w^hich  too  is  a  Circumftance  in  Support 
of  our  Conclufion  from  the  Jcwijh  Hi/lory,  that  would  be  wanting 
in  the  Cafe  given  of  a  Grecian. 

The  Strength  of  this  Argument  is  ftill  further  fupported  by  a 
View  of  the  general  Hiftory  of  Mankind  :  And  particularly  of  thofe 
Nations  moft  refembling  the  Jewifi  by  their  Genius  and  Circum- 
fiances  :  In  which  we  find  tlie  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  was  always 
pufliing  on  its  Influence.  It  was  their  conftant  Fiaticum  through 
Life ;  it  ftimulated  them  to  War,  and  fpirited  their  Songs  of 
Triumph  ;  it  made  them  infenfible  of  Pain,  immoveable  in  Danger, 
and  fuperior  to  the  Hour  of  Death.  But  this  is  not  all,  we  obferve 
that  even  in  the  Jewi/Jj  Annals,  when  this  Doftrkie  was  becoma 
national,  it  made  as  confiderable  a  Figure  in  their  Hiflory,  as  ia 

*  It  is  very  remarkable,  that  nothing  more  flrongly  evinces  the  defperate  Folly  of  thofe 
who  imagine  the  Bible  has  been  adulterated  by  the  Jews  (unlefs  it  be  their  own  Scheme 
of  reforming  it,  by  the  Affiftancc  of  a  Jcm,  who  has  accommodated  it  to  the  Tafte  of 
Pagamfm)  than  this  very  Circumftance  of  the  profound  Silence  throughout,  concerning 
0  future  State.  For  had  the  i?aW//«  ever  tampered  with  it  on  any  Head,  it  had  cer- 
tainly been  on  this,  which  they  hold  to  be  the  very  Fundamental  of  Fundamentals  f.  And 
which  yet,  after  all  their  Sweat  and  Labour,  to  difcover  in  the  Bible,  they  could  nevejs 
get  to  ;  but  are  forced  at  laft  to  take  it  upon  Truft  or  Tradition,  as  the  Indians  do  their 
fundamental  Tortoife, 


that 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  ^33 

that  of  any  other  People.  In  the  lafl:  Place  we  fliew,  that  it  is  not 
on  the  tiegijfive  Silence  only  of  the  facred  Writers,  or  of  tiie  Speak- 
ers they  introduce,  that  we  lupport  our  Conclufion  ;  but  from  their 
poftivc  Declarations^  by  which  they  plainly  difcover,  that  there  was 
no  popular  Expedation  of  a  future  State  or  Refurredion.  Such  as 
thefe  ;  That  he  that  goetb  down  to  the  Grave  Jh all  come  up  no  more  *. 
— That  in  Death  there  is  no  Remembrance  of  God,  and  in  the  Grave 
no  one  Jloall  give  him  Thanks  -f-. — That  the  Dead  know  not  any  thin^, 
neither  have  any  more  a  Reward  |. — That  they  who  go  down  to  the 
Pit  cannot  hope  for  God'^s  Truth  \. — That  thofe  who  are  dead  are 
Jiot  \\.  Where  we  find  it  to  be  the  fame  popular  Language  through- 
out, and  in  every  Circumftance  of  Life;  as  well  in  the  cool  Philo- 
fophy  of  the  Author  of  Ecclefiajles,  as  amidfl  the  Dijlreffes  of  the 
Pfalmif,  the  Lamentations  of  the  Prophet,  and  the  Exu/tations  of 
good  Hezekiah.  But  is  it  poflible  this  could  be  the  Language  of  a 
People  inftruded  in  the  Dodrnie  oi Life  and  Immortality  ?  Or  do 
we  find  one  word  of  it,  on  any  Occafion  whatfoever,  in  the  Writ- 
ers of  the  New  Tflament,  but  where  it  is  brought  in  to  be  confuted 
and  condemned  ?  The  People  in  Jeremiah  fay,  that  thofe  who  are 
dead,  are  net :  Jefus,  in  the  Gfofpel,  that  Abraham,  Ifaac,  and  Ja^ 
cob,  are  amongfl  the  Living.  Good  Men  amongil:  the  Jews  faid> 
that  thofe  who  go  down  to  the  Grave  come  up  no  more,  know  not  atiy 
thing,  have  no  Reward,  and  therefore  prayed  for  long  Life  here,  to 
praife  the  God  of  their  Salvation  :  St.  Paul,  on  the  contrary,  de- 
voutly wifhed  for  his  Diflblution,  in  order  to  receive  elfewhere  the 
Reward  of  his  Faith  and  fpiritual  Warfare.  Here,  therefore,  let 
me  admonifh  certain  Dealers  in  Syfetns,  for  once  to  fufpend  their 
Trade,  and  attend  a  Moment  to  the  Arguments  they  write  againfl-. 
For  it  will  not  be  thought  enough  that  they  prove,  on  the  Princi- 
ples of  their  Syftems,  that  theDoSlrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards, 
and  Punt  foments  OUGHT  to  be  in  the  Religion  of  Mofes,  and  therefore: 

*  2  Sam.  xiv.  14.  +  Pfal.  vi.  j.  J  Ecclef.  u.  ^ 

§  Ka^xxxviii.  18,  ig.  |i  Jer.  v.  %. 


334  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

u  there.  The  Public  will  now  exped,  that  they  direaiy  apply 
themfclves  to  the  Refutation  of  ihe/e  Arguments;  which,  being 
founded  on  no  Svjiem,  proceed  in  a  different  manner  ;  and.  from  the 
Proof  of  what  is  not  there,  conclude,  what  ought  not  to  be  there. 
But  it  is  much  eafier  to  tell  us  whatJI^ould  be  in  a  Book,  than  to  ac- 
count for  ivhat  is  in  it. 

From  theOA/  Teftament,  we  proceed  to  theiVfw;  by  which  it 
appears,  from  the  infpired  Writers  oUhis  llkewlfe,  that  the  Doc- 
trine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments  did  not  make 
Part  of  the  Mofaic  Difpenfation.  Their  Evidence  we  have  divided 
into  two  Parts,  the>y?  proving  that  temporal  Rewards  and  Punini- 
ments  were  the  SanSlion  of  the  Jeivi/J}  Difpenfation  ;  Xhtfecond,  that 
it  had  no  other.  And  thus,  with  the  direfteft  and  mofl:  unexcep- 
tionable Proof  of  the  two  iMiNOR  Proportions,  the  ffih  Book  con- 
cludes. 

VI.  But  to  remove,  as  flir  as  I  was  able,  all  Grounds  of  Prejudice 
to  this  momentous  Truth,  I  employed  the  Jixth  and  laft  Book  of 
this  Volume  in  examining  thofe  Texts  of  the  0/d  and  Nexv  Tefta- 
ment, which  had  been  commonly  urged  to  prove  that  the  Do£trIne 
of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punlfhments  did  make  part  of  the 
Mofaic  Difpenfation. 

Amongft  thofe  of  the  Old  Teftament,  the  famous  Paftage  in  the 
xixth  Chapter  of  the  Book  of  Job  holding  the  principal  Place,  I 
judged  it  of  Importance,  for  the  Reafons  there  afllgned,  to  examine 
this  Matter  to  the  Bottom  ;  which  necefllully  engaged  me  in  aii 
Enquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Genius  of  that  Book ;  ivhen  written, 
and  to  what  Purpofe  ;  whereby  not  only  a  fair  Account  is  given  of 
the  Sen fe  of  that  Paffage,  confiftent  with  my  Propofition;  but  a 
ftrong  Support  is  provided  for  what  will  be  further  fald  in  the  third 
and  laft  Volume,  concerning  the  gradual  Decay  of  the  extraordi- 
nary Providence,  from  the  Time  of  Saul  to  the  Return  from  the 
great  Captivity,  and  Refettlement  in  the  Land  of  Judaa. 

But 


OCCASIONx^L    REFLECTIONS.  335 

But  this  Difleitation  has  ftill  a  further,  and  very  important  ufc, 
regarding  Revelation  in  general.  For  fhewing  therein,  how  the 
Principles  of  the  Gofpel  Dudrine  opened  by  Degrees^  fully  obviates 
the  Calumnies  of  Tyndal  and  Collins:  who  pretend  that  the  Prlefls 
and  Leaders  of  the  Jews  refined  their  old  Do6trines  concerning  the 
Deity,  and  invented  new  ones,  jufi:  as  they  advanced  in  Knowledge 
or  the  People  in  Curlolity ;  or  as  both  were  better  intruded  in  the 
Country  to  which  they  were  led  captive. 

In  examining  the  Texts  of  the  New  Teftarnent,  the  famous 
eleventh  Chapter  of  the  Epijile  to  the  Hebrews  was  not  forgotten  ;  the 
Senfe  of  which  is  cleared  up  from  the  ftrongeft  and  moft  inveterate 
Miflakes  of  fyflematical  Divines.  In  this  Place  is  occafionally  ex- 
plained and  illuftrated  a  Matter  of  the  higheft  Moment  for  the  un- 
derftanding  St.  Paul's  Epiftles,  namely,  the  Nature  of  the  Apojlolic 
Reafoning  againji  the  Errors  of  the  Jewifh  Converts  ;  and  this  like- 
wife  contributes  flill  further  to  fupport  the  Truth  of  our  two  minor. 
Propofitions. 

As  in  all  this  1  taught  nothing  contrary  to  tlie  Do£trine  of  our 
excellent  Church,  my  Profeffion,  in  common  Decency,  not  to  fay 
Jiiflice  both  to  mylelf  and  others,  required  1  fhould  vindicate  the 
Reality  of  my  Conformity.  Having  therefore  declared  it  as  my 
unfeigned  Opinion  that,  "  though  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and 
•'  Punifhments  made  no  part  of  the  Mofaic  Difpenfation,  yet  that 
'*  the  Law  had  a  fpiritiial  Meaning,  to  be  underftood  when  the 
"  Fullnefs  of  Time  fliould  come,  and  hence  received  the  Nature^ 
"  and  afforded  the  Efficacy  of  Prophecy  :  And  That  in  the  interim^. 
**  the  Myfiery  of  the  Gofpel  was  occafionally  revealed  by  God  to  his. 
"  chofen  Servants,  the  headers  and  Fathers  of  the  Jeijcifj  Nation  ; 
"  and  the  Dawning  of  it  gradually  opened  by  the  Prophets  to  the 
"  People :"  Having,  I  fay,  declared  this  to  be  my  unfeigned. 
Opinion,  I  fhew,  from  the  Words  of  the  Seventh  Article  ofRtUglony. 
that  it  is  the  Opinion  of  our  excellent  Church  likewife.  And  that 
I  may  not  be  fufpeded  of  Terglverfatlon,  when  1  fubfcribe  to  this 
Ar^ticle^  that  They  are  not  to  be  heard  which  fig»r  ^'■'^i  H'-"^  (^^<^ 

RilAers 


336  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
Fatbt-n  did  look  only  for  tranfitory  Promifes,  I  attempt  to  illuftrate 
the  Words  of  Jcfus,  where  he  fays  that  Abraham  rejoiced  to  fee 
Ch rift's  Day,  and  Jaw  it,  and  was  glad,  by  the  noblcft  Iiiftance 
that  ever  was  given  of  the  Harmony  between  the  0/d  and  A^ew 
Tcftament,  on  the  Principles  before  laid  down  in  the  Dlfcourfe  on 
the  Hieroglyphics ;  and  (hew  that  the  Command  to  Abraham  to  offer 
Ifaac  was  merely  an  Information  (given  at  Abraham's  earneft  Re- 
qucft)  \\\  7^  reprefentative  Action,  \\\^&z^  oi  Words,  of  the  Redemp- 
tion of  Mankind  by  the  great  Sacrifice  of  Chrfl.  From  whence  we 
gain  two  other  Advantages,  befides  that  more  immediate,  of  jufti- 
fying  the  Doftrine  of  our  national  Church.  The  frjl  of  which  is 
the  fupporting  a  real  and  effcntial  Comiedlion  between  Judaifm  and 
Chrijiianity.  The  other  is,  difpofing  the  Dcifts  to  think  more 
favourably  of  their  Bible :  For  our  Interpretation  overthrows  all 
Objedions  to  this  part  of  Abrahants  Hiftory.  The  Matter  there- 
fore being  of  this  high  Importance,  it  was  proper  to  fix  it  on  fuch 
Principles  as  would  leave  no  Room  for  Doubt  or  Objeftion.  And 
this  could  be  done  only  by  explaining  the  Nature  of  thofe  various 
Modes  of  Information  in  ufe  amongft  the  Ancients ;  for  which  Ex- 
planation likewife  a  proper  Foundation  had  been  laid  in  the  Dlf- 
courfe on  the  Hieroglyphics.  But  this  is  not  all  j  we  get  a  yet  fur- 
ther and  much  more  confiderable  Benefit  by  it,  and  that  Is  the 
clearing  up  and  vindicating  the  logical  Truth  and  Propriety  of 
Types  in  Action,  d^nd  fecondary  Senfes  in  Speech:  whereon  the  Divi- 
nity of  the  ancient  Prophecies  concerning  Chri/i  are  to  be  fupport- 
ed ;  and  which,  at  this  Time,  moft  needed  a  Support.  For  though 
the  greater  part  of  thefe  Prophefes  relate  to  Jefus  only  in  zfecondary 
Senfe,  yet  had  fome  Men  of  Name  and  in  the  Interefts  of  Religion, 
through  Ignorance  of  the  true  Original  and  Nature  oi  fecondary 
S''nfes,  raflily  concurred  with  modern  Judaifm  and  Infidelity,  to 
give  up  all  fuch  as  illogical  and  enthufiajlk,  to  the  imminent  Ha- 
zard of  overturning  the  very  Foundation  of  our  Faith.  In  the 
Courfe  of  this  Enquiry,  I  had  an  Opportunity  of  examining  and 
confuting  one  of  the  moft  able  and  plaufible  Books  ever  written 

againft 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  337 

agalnfl  Revelation,  the  Grounds  and  Reafons  of  the  Chri/lian  Religion, 
which  goes  entirely  upon  the  illogical  Fanaticifm  of  afecondary  Senfe 
of  Prophifies. 

The  intelligent  Reader  will,  I  prefume,  allow  thefe  Reafons  fuf- 
ficient  tojuftify  the  Length  of  this  Dijfertation:  but  there  were  two 
other  more  immediately  relative  to  my  Queftion,  that  engaged  me  in 
the  Enquiry,  The  one  was  to  (hew,  that  thofe,  who  contend  for 
the  Chriflian  Do£lrine  of  ?i  future  State's  being  revealed  to  the  early 
fews,  deflroy  all  Reafon  of  ^  fecondary  Senfe  of  Prophefies  ;  (a  Mat- 
ter, as  we  have  fhewn,  of  the  utmoft  Importance  to  Revelation  :) 
For  how  can  it  be  certainly  known,  from  the  Prophefies  themfelves, 
that  they  contain  double  Senfes,  but  from  hence,  that  the  old  Law 
was  preparatory  to,  and  tlie  Rudiments  of,  theiV^w.^  How  (hall 
this  Relation  be  certainly  known,  but  from  hence,  that  no  future 
State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments  is  to  be  found  in  the  Mofaic  Dif- 
fenfation  ?  So  clofe  a  Dependence  have  all  thefe  momentous  Prin- 
ciples on  one  another.  The  other  more  immediate  Reafon  for  tliis 
Diflertation,  on  Types  and  fccondary  Senfes,  was  this  :  As  I  had 
Ihewn  that  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifliments  was  revealed 
under  no  part  of  the  Jewifo  Oeconomy  any  otherwife  than  by  thofe 
Modes  of  Information,  it  was  neceflary,  in  order  to  (hew  the  real 
Conne6lion  between  fuJaifn  and  Chrifianiiy  (the  Truth  of  the 
latter  Religion  depending  on  that  real  Connexion)  to  prove  thofe 
Modes  logical  and  rational.  For  as  on  the  one  hand,  had  the  Doc- 
rine  of  Life  and  Immortality  been  revealed  under  the  Mofaic  Oeco- 
nomy, Judaifm  had  been  more  than  a  Rudiment  and  Preparation  of 
Chrifianity ;  fo  had  no  covert  Intimations  at  all  been  given  of  the 
Do£lrine,  it  had  been  lefs :  That  is,  the  Dependency  and  Connec- 
tion between  the  two  Religions  had  not  been  fufhciently  marked 
out  and  afcertained.  With  this  neccjfary  Dil^^rtation,  therefore, 
t\nsfxth  and  lafl:  Book  of  the  fecond  Volume  concludes. 

Thus  the  Reader  fees  at  length,  how  regularly  and  intently  thefe 
two  Volumes  have  been  carried  on  :  The  frf  in  proving  the  Major, 
and  the  fecond,  the  Minor  Propohtionb  of  the  two  Syllogifms.     In 

Vol.  VI.  X  x  which. 


338  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

whlcli,  rliough  the  Author  (whofe  Paffion  Is  not  fo  much  a  fond- 
nets  for  his  own  Argument  as  for  the  Honour  and  Support  of  Re- 
ligion itlclf)  has  ncglcdcd  no  fair  Occafion  of  inforcing  every  Cir- 
cumftancc,  that  might  ferve  to  illuftrate  the  Truth  of  Revelai'on 
in  general  \  yet  he  never  lofcs  Sight  of  his  End  ;  but,  as  the  Rule 
for  conducing  the  moft  regular  Works  prefcribes, 
Semper  ad  eventum  fejiinat. 

T/.is  Volume  too  1  thought  fit  to  publifli  alone,  as  I  did  the  FirJIi 
though  not  tticre'iy  for  the  fame  Reafon,  its  being  a  perfeft  and 
entire  IFhole  of  itfelf,  explaining  the  Nature  and  Genius  of  the 
Jcix)ijh  Conjlitution ;  but  for  a  much  better — that  it  fairly  fnified 
the  Argument.  For  my  Logic  teaches  me,  that,  when  the  Major 
and  the  Minor  are  once  proved,  the  Conclusion  follows  of  courfe. 
And  this  is,  that  the  Jewish  Religion  and  Society  were 
SUPPORTED  Bv  AN  EXTR AORDiN ARY  Providence  :  For  be  this^ 
never  fo  furious  a  Paradox,  it  may  be  rendered  as  tame  and  harm- 
lefs  as  any  other  Truth  by  the  common  Advantages  of  Argument; 
unlefs  a  Raifer  oi  Paradoxes,  like  a  Raifer  oi  Rebellion,  is  to  be  ipfo 
faSio,  outlazved;  and  the  One  denied  all  Benefit  of  theLo§-/f,  as  the 
Other  is,  of  the  Law,  of  his  Country. 

III. 

VII.  It  may  be  afked  then,  what  I  mean  by  a  third  Volume,  if 
the  Argument  be  ended  m  the  fecondP  To  this  I  anfwer,  That  it 
is  one  Thing  to  fatisfy  Truth ;  and  another,  her  pretended  Fol- 
lowers. He  who  engages  for  Revelation,  has  many  Prejudices  to 
encounter;  but  he  who  engages  for  it,  under  Reafon  only,  has 
many  more.  I  cannot  then  make  too  fure  of  my  Reader.  And, 
luckily,  the  Plan  of  my  Work  obliging  me  to  continue  the  Hiflory 
of  the  Religious  DoSlrines  of  the  Jews,  from  the  Time  of  the  firft 
Prophets,  to  that  of  the  Maccabees,  when  the  Dodrine  of  a  Future 
State  of  Rewards  and  Punifiiments  firft  became  national;  this  Hif- 
tory  will  afford  abundant  Proofs  for  the  further  Illuftration  of  the 

major 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  ^^^^ 

MAJOR  Propofitions  of  the  two  Syllogifms.  And  this  will  make 
the  Subjeft  of  xXxtfeventh  Book  of  The  Divine  Legation^  or  the  f.rjl 
Part  of  the  Third  Volume. 

VIII.  Having  in  this  Manner  gone  through  my  general  Argument^ 
what  remains  is  an  Examination  of  the  principal  Objcdliom  that  may 
be  urged  againfl  it :  And  thefe  being  founded  in  the  fuppofed 
Views  and  Objedls  of  the  JeioijJ:  Lawgiver,  this  Examination  will 
be  chiefly  employed  in  explaining  and  vindicating  the  true  Cha- 
racter of  Moses  :  From  whence  will  arife  a  new  Series  of  Ar- 
guments for  the  Support  of  the  minor  Propofitions  of  the  x.\\q  Syl- 
logifms :  and,  particularly,  a  Demonflrarion  that  ftiews  the  Conclu- 

Jion  of  the/econci  Syllogifm  *,  to  have  all  the  Force  of  ihtjirji  -j- :  the 
only  thing  it  might  feem  to  want.  This  Demonflrntion  may  be  re- 
duced to  this  Syllogifm. 

None,  but  one  ignorant  of  the  World,  or  an  EnthufiaO:,  who  had 
received  a  Promife  like  that  given  to  the  Jews,  and  had  lived  to 
the  Time  marked  for  its  Accomplifhment,  could  be  miftaken 
either  about  the  Promife  or  its  Completion. 
But  Mofes  received  fuch  a  Promife,  and  lived  to  the  Time  marked 
for  its  Accomplifhment,  and  was  neither  ignorant  of  the  World, 
nor  an  Enthufiafl-. 
Therefore  iVio/^j  not  mifliaken  either  about  the  Promife  or  itSx'\c- 

compllfhment. 
This  will  make  the  Subjecl  of  the  eighth  Book,  or  i\\QfeconJ  part 
of  the  third  Volume. 

IX.  But  having,  towards  the  Conclufion  of  tlie  eighth  Book,  in 
anfwer  to  various  m^dcX  OhjeSiions^  examined  the  prt tended  Reafons 
of  the  Omi/Jion  of  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and 
Punilhments  in  the  Mofaic  Difpenfatlon  ;  I  am  naturally  and  neccf- 

*  Namely,  that  Mofes,  who  taugdt,  believed   likewifc,  that  the  Jtwiflj  Religion  and 
Society  were  to  be  fupported  by  an  extraordinary  Providence, 
t  Namely,  that  they  were  under  an  extraordinary  Providence. 

X  X  2  farily 


340  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

fctrUy  led  to  enquire,  further,  into  the  true.  For  now  k  might 
he/ndiy  objected,  that  thougli,  under  an  extraordinary  Providence, 
there  might  be  no  Occojhn  for  the  Doarine  of  a  future  State  of  Re- 
wards and  Punifhrnents,  in  Support  of  Religion,  or  the  Ends  of 
Government ;  yet,  as  that  Doftrine  was  true,  and,  confequently, 
under  every  Regiment  of  Providence,  ujeful\  it  feems  hard  to  con- 
ceive that  tlie  Religious  Leader  of  the  Jews,  becaufe,  as  a  Law- 
giver, he  could  do  without  it,  that  therefore,  as  a  Divine,  he  would 
omit  it.  Tlie  Objedlon  is  of  Weight  in  itfelf,  and  receives  much 
additional  Strength  from  what  we  have  obferved  in  the  Jifth  Book 
concerning  the  Reafon  of  the  Law  of punijlnng  Children  for  the  Crimes 
cf  their  Parents.  I  hold  it  therefore  not  fufficient  barely  to  reply, 
Mofes  omitted  it,  that  his  Law  might  thereby  remain  throughout  all 
yiges  an  invincible  Monument  of  the  Truth  of  his  Pretences  ;  but  pro- 
ceed to  explain  the  great  and  principal  Recfon  of  the  Omiffion. 
And  now,  ventum  ad  verum  efl.  This  leads  me  into  one  general 
View  of  the  whole  Courfe  of  God's  univerfal  Oeconomy  from  Adam 
to  Chriji,  ending  in  a  Diflertation  on  the  true  Nature  and  Genius 
of  the  Christian  Faith,  and  fo  adding  new  and  irrefiftible  Forco 
to  the  Conclusions  of  both  my  Syllogifms.  With  this  the  ninth 
Book,  or  third  Part  of  the  laft  Volume,  concludes. 

This  I  purpofe  to  give  the  Public  without  Delay  :  Not  for  any 
prefllng  NecefTity  nty  Argument  has  of  it,  for  I  left  it  not,  as  was 
iiifniuated,  naked  and  fupportlefs ;  but,  as  the  Reader  now  fees, 
furrounded  with  various  Outworks,  and  ftanding  flrongly  on  Its 
Conclufion',  But,  principally,  that  I  may  be  at  Liberty  to  addrefs 
myfelf  to  a  much  larger  Work.  A  full  Defence  of  Revelation  in  ge- 
neral and  of  the  Chrijlian  Faith  in  particular,  againjl  Unbelievers  of 
all  Denominations.  A  Work  long  proje£led,  and  which  my  Chrlf- 
tian  Profelfion,  and  fHU  more  folemn  Engagements  in  the  Service 
of  Religion,  perfuaded  me  was  my  Duty,  with  the  good  Leave  of 

my  Brethren,  to   devote  myfelf  unto. Not  to  fpeak  at  prefent 

of  the  high  Encouragement  to  all  Attempts  of  this  Nature  from  the 

Felicity 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         341 

Ftllcity  of  tuc  Times,  which  is,  or  would  be,  always  urging  me 

on,  ill  the  Words  of  the  Poet : 

"  — — —  Va  pallr  fur  la  Bible  ; 
*'  Va  marquer  les  ecueils  de  cette  mer  terrible  : 
•'  Perce  la  falnte  horreur  de  ce  Livre  divin  : 
"  Confons  dans  un  Ouvrage  etTlndal  et  Collin  : 
"  Debrouille  des  vieux  terns  les  querelles  celebres  ; 
"  Eclalrcl  des  Rabins  les  favante&tenebres : 
•*  Afin  qu'en  ta  vlclllefle,  un  livre  en  marbquln 
•'  Aille  offrir  ton  travail  a  quelque  heureux  Faquin, 
*'  Qui,  pour  digne  lo'i'er  de  la  Bible  eclalrcie, 
"  Te  paie  en  Tacceptant  d'un  je  vous  remercie."" 

BOILEAU- 


APPEN- 


I    342    3 


APPENDIX. 

CONTAINING 

The  Judgments  of  GROTIUS,  EPISCOPIUS,  and  Bifhop  BULL ; 

SHEWING, 

That  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punishmenes  was  not  taught 
to  the  People  of  the  Jews  by  the  Law  and  Religion  of  Moses. 

G  R  O  T  I  U  S. 

MOSES  in  Religionis  Judaicas  Inftitutione,  fi  diferta  Legis  refpi- 
cimus,  nihil  promifit  fupra  hujus  vitce  bona,  terram,  uberem, 
penum  copiofum,  vidtoriam  de  hoftibus,  longam  &  valentem  feneftu- 
tem,  poftcros  cum  bona  fpe  fuperflites.  Nam,  si  quid  est  ultra, 
in  umbris  obtegitur,  aut  fapienti  ac  difficili  ratiocinatione  colligen- 
dum eft." 

EPISCOPIUS. 

"  In  tota  Lege  Mofaica  nullum  vitae  arternse  pramium,  ac  ne  a-terni 
*'  quidem  prsmii  indicium  vel  vestigium  extat  :  quicquid  nunc  Judsi 
"  multum  de  future  feculo,  de  refurredione  mortuorum,  de  vita  ceterna 
"  loquantur,  &  ex  Legis  verbis  ea  extorquere  potius  quam  oftendere  co- 

"  nentur. 


Append.    OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         343 

"  nentur,  ne  Legem  Mosis  imperfect  am  esse  cogantur  agnofcerc  cum 
*'  Sadducasis  ;  qucs  olim  (&.  uti  obfervo  ex  fcriptis  Rabbinoriim,  bo- 
*'  dieque)  vitam  futuri  fasculi  Lege  Mofis  ncc  promitti  nee  contineri  adfir- 
*'  maflc,  quum  tamen  Juda;i  effcnt,  certiffiinum  eft.  Ncmpe  non  nifi  per 
*'  Cabalam  five  Traditionem,  quam  illi  in  univcrfum  rtjicicbant,  opinioncin 
•'  five  fidem  illam  irrepfiire  allerebant.  Et  fane  opiiiionuni,  qux  inter  Jii- 
*'  da^os  erat,  circa  vitam  futuri  fseculi  difcrepantia,  arguit  promiflioncs  Lege 
•'  fadas  tales  effc  ut  ex  iis  certi  quid  de  vita  futuri  fa:culi  non  pofTit  col- 
*'  ligi.  Qiiod  &  Servator  noftcr  non  obfcure  innuit,  cum  refurredtioncm 
"  mortuorum  colligit  Mat.  xxii.  non  ex  promiflb  aliquo  Lcgi  addito,  fed 
"  ex  gencrali  tantum  illo  promifTo  Dei,  quo  fc  Deum  Abrahami,  Ifaaci, 
"  &  Jacobi  futurum  fpoponderat :  quae  tamen  ilia  colleftio  magis  nititur 
*'  cogniiione  intentionis  divine  fub  generalibus  iflis  verbis  occultats  aut 
*'  comprehenfiE,  de  qua  Chriflo  ccrto  conflabat,  quam  neceflaria  confe- 
*'  quentia  five  verborum  vi  ac  virtute  manifcftd,  qualis  nunc  &  in  verbis 
"  Novi  Teflamenti,  ubi  vita  letcrna  &  refurreftio  mortuorum  proram  & 
*'  puppim  faciunt  totius  Rellgionis  Qhriflianse,  &  tam  clare  ac  diferte  pro- 
"  mittuntur  ut  ne  hifcere  quidem  contra  quis  poflit."  Inftit.  Theol.  lib»  iii^ 
feft.  I.  c.  2. 

BULL. 

"  Primo  qusritur  an  in  Vet.  Teftamento  nullum  omnino  extet  vitat 
«'  ccternte  promiflum  ?  de  eo  enim  a  nonnullis  dubitatur.  Refp.  Huic  quse- 
"  ftioni  optimc  mihi  videtur  refpondere  Auguftinus,  diflinguens  nomen 
"  Veteris  Teftamenti;  nam  eo  intelligi  ait  aut  pacftum  illud,  quod  in  monte 
"  Sinai  fadium  eft,  aut  omnia,  quce  in  Mofe,  Hagiographis,  ac  Prophetis 
*'  continentur.  Si  Vetus  Teftamcntum  pofleriori  fenfu  accipiatur,  concedi 
"  FORSiTAN  poffit,  efTe  in  eo  nonnulla  futurcc  vitfE  non  obfcura  indicia  ; 
"  prcefertim  in  libro  Pfalmorum,  Danicle,  5c  Ezckiele  :  quanquam  vel  in 
"  his  Libris  clarum  ac  difertum  sterna:  vitce  promiflum  vix  ac  ne  vix 
*'  quidem  reperias.  Sed  hxc  qualiacunquc  erant,  non  erant  nifi  prsludia 
"  &  anticipationes  gratiit-  Evangclicn?,  ad  Legem  non  pertinebant. — 
"  Lex  enim  promifla  habuit  terrena,  &  terrena  tantum. — Si  quis  contra 
**  fentiat  ejus  eft  bcum  dare,  ubi  sternas.  vita;  promiffio  extat ;  0^100 
*'  CERTE  IMP0S3IBILE  EST. — Sub  his  autcm  verbis  [Icgis  ipfiusj  Dei  inten- 
"  tione    comprebenfam   fuiile   vitam  a-ternam,    ex   intcrprctatione  ipfiua 

"  Chrifli 


.44  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL  Append. 

•«  ChrilVi  eiufque  Apoaolorum  nunifedum  eft.  Vcrum  hac  non  fufficiimt 
««  ut  dicamus  vitam  cctcrnam  in  Focdere  Mofaico  promiflam  fuiflc.  Nam 
'«  primo  promilTa,  pra:fertini  Foederi  annexa,  dcbent  effc  clara  ac  difcrta, 
•'  k  cjulmodi,  ut  ab  utraque  parte  ftipulante  intclligi  poflint.  Piomiffa 
"  autcm  hxc  typica  &  gcneralia,  non  addita  aliunde  interpretatione,  pene 

"  IMPOSSIBILE     ERAT    UT     QJ.IIS    ISTO    SENSU    INTELLIGERET.'*       Harmonia 

Apoftolica,  DilTcrt.  poftcr.  c.  x.  feft.  viii,  p.  474.  inter  Op.  Om.  Ed. 
1721. 

I.  Thus  thcfe  three  great  Ornaments  of  the  Protcftant  Religion.  And 
what  more  has  been  faid  or  done  by  the  Author  of  the  Divine  Legation  ? 
Only  this,  he  hath  fh^wn,  that  the  Abfence  or  Omiffion  of  a  future  State 
of  lUvvards  and  Puniftiments  in  the  Mofaic  Religion  is  a  certain  Mark  of  its 
Divinity.  Forgive  me  this  ff^rong.  It  has  indeed  been  objected  that  Bilhop 
BuU  talked  very  differently  in  an  EngUJh  pofthumous  Sermon.  All  that  I 
can  fay  to  this  is,  that,  if  he  did  fo,  it  was  not  by  my  Direftion ;  who  hold 
it  to  be  unlawful  to  fay  one  thing  to  the  People,  and  another  to  their  Paf- 
tors.  But  Bifliop  Bull,  it  feems,  might  fay  what  he  pleafed.  He  might, 
to  fupport  his  Opinion,  fay  without  Cenfure,  nay,  with  Commendation, 
that  the  DoSlrine  of  a  future  State  was  amongfl  the  Arcam  0/  the  Jews :  That 
there  was  a  twofold  manner  of  teaching  amongjl  them,  one  fulled  to  vulgar 
Apprehenftons,  the  other  to  thcfe  who  had  made  fame  Proficiency  in  Knowledge  *. 
But  if  I  venture  to  fay  fo,  a  Legion  of  Bigots  are  in  arms.  And  do  1  fay 
any  other,  in  affirming,  that  during  the  early  Ages  of  the  Jewifh  Republick 
a  future  State  was  not  a  national  Dodrine,  but  known  only  to  fome  few  of  their 
Leaders?  Thus  can  the  Writer  quoted  above  abufe  me,  throughout  a 
whole  Pamphlet,  for  holding  the  very  fame  thing  for  which  Bilhop  Bull 
merited  his  Commendation  ;  and  this  in  an  outrageous  Manner  too^  as  if 
1  had  faid  fomething  moft  derogatory  to  the  Honour  and  Attributes  of  God., 
But  this  is  the  Hocus  pocus  of  Controverfy.  When  the  Bifhop  and  I  have 
paid  him  in  the  fame  Coin,  that,  frofti  the  Biftop's  Pocket,  ftiall  be  true 
orthodox  Sterling  -,  which,  from  mine,  comes  out  dipt,  wafht,  and  coun- 
terfeit. But  the  Man's  a  Bungler;  and  neither  underftands  clean  Convey- 
anccj  nor  has  Aflurance  enough  to  outface  the  Fraud.  For  confcious,  as 
it  were,  of  an  ill-played  Trick,  he  patches  up  the  Cheat  in  this  flovenly 

*  An  Examination  of  Mr.  Warburton's  fecond  Propofition,  &c.  in  an  epiftolary  Bif- 
fcriation  addreiTed  to  the  Author,  p.  ,25,  jufl  now  come  to  my  Hands. 

Manner, 


Append.     OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         -45 

Manner,  Surely,  (fays  he)  there  is  a  great  Dijfcrcnce  between  indujlrhujly 
keeping  a  thing  out  of  Sight,  and  indujlrioujly  propagating  it  among/}  all  wno 

WERE    ABLE     AND    WILLING    TO    RECEIVE  IT*.       IHuftrioUS  DiftinguiillCr  ! 

Does  not  the  Bishop's  indujirioujly  propagating  it  amon?/l  all  zc-ho  are  able 
and  willing  to  receive  it,  imply  the  keeping  it  cut  of  Sight  Uom  the  rc(l  ? 
And  does  not  my  indujirioujly  keeping  it  out  of  fight  from  the  reft,  imply  the 
propagating  it  amongjt  all  who  were  able  and  luitling  to  receive  it  ?  But,  in 
this  Cafe,  I  have  done  more  than  by  Implication  ;  I  have  faid  over  and 
over  again,  that  it  was  communicated  to  the  few  able  to  receive  it.  I  did 
not  indeed  add  luilling.  That  Difcovery  was  referyed  for  the  wonderful 
Penetration  of  our  Author.  I  had  no  Conception  but  that  every  few  was 
•u,'!lling  enough  to  receive  not  only  the  Promifc  of  the  Life  that  new  is,  but 
of  that  which  is  to  come:  But  it  is  a  reafouable  Qiieflion  whether  they  were 
as  able  ;  and  would  not  then  have  quitted  both  the  School  and  Schoclmafler 
that  was  to  bring  them  to  Chrifi  long"  before  the  good  Time  he  had  ap- 
pointed. But  thefe  are  Matters  above  our  Autlior's  Comprehenfion.  He 
will  needs  know  why  God  adlcd  thus  myfterioufly.  I  will  tell  him  when 
he  informs  me  (and  perhaps  before)  why  America  for  fo  many  Ages  was 
debarred  the  Light  of  the  Gofpel.  Were  not  thefe  his  Offspring  as  well 
as  the  Sons  of  Abraham  ?  But  this  is  the  Advantage  that  he  and  his  Fel- 
lows take  with  the  Ignorant.  They  cry  out,  What!  a  Religion  from 
God  without  a  future  State  ?  No.  Rather  than  this,  any  thing.  They 
will  go  a  Text-hunting,  lie  at  catch  for  an  Ambiguity,  divorce  the 
Sentence  from  its  Context,  flrip  it  naked;  and  if,  after  all  this  Vio- 
lence, it  does  but  fquint  their  way,  fee  here,  fay  xhty,  as  clear  a 
Proof  of  it  as  from  the  preaching  of  Jefus.  Yet  let  thefe  Texts  but 
fpeak  for  themfelves,  or  without  any  other  Prompter  than  the  Context, 
and  we  fhall  foon  fee  that  there  is  not  one  of  all  they  have  ever  produced, 
in  the  Period  in  queftion,  that  can  by  any  Rules  of  good  Critic  be  made 
to  fignify  the  lead  Notice  of  a  future  State,  otherwife  than  in  a  fecondary 
and  fpiritual  Scnfe.  In  the  mean  time  let  no  good  Man  be  fcandalized 
with  their  Clamour.  All  fuch  fhall  foon  fee  this  Tcmpefl;  of  Malice  and 
Bigottry  difperfcd,  and  the  Scripture  of  God  at  laft  vindicated  even  from 
its  worft  and  molt  fatal  Mifchief ;  the  Virulence  of  falfe  Zeal.  But  this 
and  Bigottry  have  fo  blinded  our  Anonymous,  that  in  another  place  he 

•  I'age  125. 

Vol.  VI.  Y  y  Infuh- 


346  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL      Append. 

iofultin-ly  an<5  mc  *,  Whkre  /  leamt  that  Death  doth  not  now  reign?  and 
yet  bcibrc  he  ends  his  Page  he  himfelf  quotes  thefe  Words  of  the  Apoaie, 
Jefus  Cbtijl  hiilb  aboUJhcd  Death  f . 

2.  But  now,  if  t!ie  bringing  over  fuch  kind  of  Writers,  and  leading 
tliein  into  the  'oaxn  of  So.fi,  were  any  Matter  of  Merit,  I  had  much  to- 
boaft  of.     When  1  firft  adventured  to  fail  upon  their  Syftems,  nothing  was 
heard  amongft  them  but  "  that  Mofes  did  teach  a  future  State  ;  and  plainly 
«<  too  ;  if  not,  the  worfe  for  him  ;  for  he  ought  to  have  taught  it."     This 
was  then  the  Cry.    But  now  their  Note  is  altered.    This  Anonymous  owns 
very  frankly  that  Mofes  taught  no  future  State,  nay  more,  could  not  teach 
it.     Mofes  (fays   he)  as  an  authorized  Teacher  could  not  declare  the  DoSlrim 
of  a  future  State  %.     This  DeHrhie  was  not  in  his  Co»imi//ton  §.     And  fo,  in 
other  Places,  to  the  fame  Purpofe.     Thus,  after  having  fought  through 
all  their  own  Weapons  in  vain,  they  will  now  try  if  they  cannot  filence 
mc  with  mine;  and  make  that  very  Principle  on  which  I  raifed  my  fecond 
Fropo/ilion  ferve  to  the  Subverfion  of  it.     For  the  Reader  muft  not  fancy 
that  they  now  begin  to  embrace  any  of  my  Principles  in  the  Love  of 
Truth,  but  of  Contention  only.     But  let  us  take  him  as  we  find  him.     He 
fays,  Mcfes  had  it  7iot  in  CommiJJton  to  teach  a  future  State.     Be  it  fo.     I  afk 
then,  firft,  how  he  comes  to  know  this  ?     If  he  fays,  becaufe  Mofes  did  not 
teach  it,  he  will  argue  as  becomes  him.     But  I  will  fuppofe  him  to  fay, 
becaufe  it  was  rcfervedfor  the  Commijfion  of  Jefus.     Then  thus  1  argue — ^"1  hat 
traditional  Knowledge,  which  this  Man  fays  they  had  of  the  Docftrine, 
was  either  a  divine  or  human  Tradition.     If  he  fays,  a  divine,  then  fome 
holy  Man  had  it  in  Commi/ficn  to  teach  before  Mofes,  or  God  himfelf  taught 
it.     In  either  Cafe,  I  afk  why  it  could  not  have  been  intrufted  to  Mofes, 
when  inftituting  a  new  Religion  and  civil  Government,  fince  it  was  of  a 
Nature  to  be  intrufled  ?     If  he  will  fay,  of  human  Tradition,  it  is  then  cer- 
tain Mofcs's  Silence,  in  a  Religion  to  which  nothing  was  to  be  added,  and 
from  which  nothing  was  to  be  taken,  muft  have  very  foon  erafed  all  hu- 
man Traditions  from  the  Minds  and  Memory  of  the  People ;  which  in- 
deed was  the  Cafe.     Though  human  Traditions,  in  After-ages,  they  had 
enough.     And  when  I  come  to  fhew  why  they  took  them  up,  and  whence 
they  had  them,  that  they  had  them  not  in  the  Times  in  queftion  will  be 
feen  to  a  Demonftration.     I  only  mention  this  to  fhew,  the  wretched  Fu- 

♦  P.  70.  t  2  Tiro.  i.  10.  t  P-  S.  §  P-  7- 

tility 


Append.     OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS,        347 

tilit)^  of  fuch  a  Writer,  who,  when  he  fteals  a  true  Principle,  knows  fo  lit- 
tie  what  to  make  of  it.  It  is  very  true,  This  Doclrine  zvas  not  in  Mofcs's 
Csmmijion.  And  from  this  great  Truth  I  lliall  prove,  to  the  Shame  of  all 
fuch  Writers,  that  it  could  7wt  be  a  national  Doftrine  amongft  the  jr.cs 
m  the  Times  I  mention.  But  this  in  my  hijl  Volume.  For  I  proceed 
very  differently  from  thcfe  Writers.  They,  from  what  they  imagine, 
could  jwt  be,  would  prove  it  zvas  not.  I,  from  what  I  prove  was  not,  fliew 
afterwards  what  could  not  be.  But  he  faw  not  this,  that  the  People's  not 
having  the  Doftrine  was  a  neceffary  Confcquence  of  Mnfes's  not  teaching 
it.  And  no  wonder,  when  we  confidcr  how  he  came  by  his  Principle,, 
that  he  fliould  undcrftand  none  of  its  Confequenccs.  Hence  it  is  that  he 
fo  ignorantly  accufes  me  of  having  confounded  thefe  two  things  throughout 
my  Book.  That  is,  of  taking  Advantage  of,  and,  all  the  way,  inforcing 
a  neceffary  Confequence  from  a  certain  Principle. 

But,  one  Word  more  with  him  on  this  Head,  He  fays,  Mofcs  had  it  not  in 
Conwujfion.  What  thinks  he  of  the  Book  of  Job  ?  He  fays  he  thinks 
of  \t  vtxj  differejitly  frotn  me.  It  is  prudently  fald,  and  enough  to  fccure 
his  Credit,  and  keep  him  orthodox.  •  We  will  for  once  fupport  his  Mo- 
defly ;  and  conceive  him  to  hold,  that  the  Book  was  written  by  Mojes ; 
and  that  the  famous  Text,  in  the  nineteenth  Chapter,  relates  to  the 
Refurredtion.  But  then  what  becomes  of  the  Principle  of  Mofes's  no  Com- 
mij/ion  ?  Or  will  he  fay  Mofes  did  not  write  it,  and  that  the  Text  in 
the  nineteenth  Chapter  does  not  relate  to  a  Refurrcdion  ?  What  then 
becomes  of  his  Orthodoxy?  See  now  what  it  is  to  be  flierking  the  Prin- 
ciples of  the  Profane.  Common  Senfe  cries  out  againll  this  unfandificd 
Commerce, 

Veto  e(fe  tale  luminis  commercium. 

If  the  good  Man  will  believe  me,  he  is  out  of  his  way.  I  would  advife 
him  to  return  again  as  faft  as  he  can  into  the  old  Dunjlable  Road  of 
Mofes  and  a  future  State  for  ever.  This  was  only  an  intemperate  Fit  of 
Zeal  that  hurried  him  half  Seas  over,  before  he  knew  where  he  was, 
or  had  time  to  look  about  him.  For  what  is  it  he  is  doing  ?  "  Mofes 
"  inftituted  the  Whole  of  an  entire  new  Religion  :  enjoins  nothing  to  be 
•'  added  to,  nor  taken  from  it:  Purpofely  omits  the  Dodtrine  of  a  future 
"  State,  becaufe  it  was  not  in  his  Commiffion,  but  rcferved  for  the  great 
*♦  Redeemer  of  Mankind ;    and  yet  the  People,  to  whom  he  gave  this 

Y  y  2  <'  RcH- 


348  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL  Append, 

••  Religion,  lad  the  Doflrine  of  a  future  State  as  bf  National  Belief,  all 
•'  along  from  his  time,  to  the  Captivity,  though  we  can  fip.d  no  Fooc- 
"  lleps  or  Traces  of  it  in  their  Hiftory." 
Credat  JUD.-EUS  Apella, 

may,  I  btUcvc,  be  given  in  anfwer  to  this  Man's  Creed  with  greater  Pro- 
.-prii-ty  than  ever  it  was  applied  fince  Horace  fnft  ufed  it.  After  this,  Is 
fuch  a  Writer  to  be  argued  with  ?  To  talk  of  a  Dodrine  not  being  in 
the  CoinmilTion  of  a  Minirter  of  God,  becaufc  it  was  referved  for  a  future 
Age;  anil  yet  that  the  People  on  whom  his  Mlniflry  was  employed  had  all 
along  this  very  Doftrlne,  is  a  Mockery  both  of  God  and  Man.  For  why 
was  not  Mofes  permitted  to  teach  it,  but  becaufe  the  Knowledge  of  it  was 
referved  for  a  future  Age?  Or  if  they  were  then  taught  it,  or  had  it, 
what  hindered  but  Mofes  might  have  taught  it  ?  Be  not  deceived  ;  as  God 
is  net  mocked^  fo  neither  does  he  mock  his  Creatures.  In  fliort,  this  Rea- 
foning  of  my  Adverfary  is,  verbis  (olhre,  re  ponere,  the  Reverfe  of  the  Epi- 
curean :  But  perhaps  he  may  like  it  the  better  for  It,  as  'tis  paying  thofe 
'Jewijh  Epicureans,  the  Saddticees,  in  Kind  :  And  with  this  Clafs  of  An- 
fwerers  the  Reverfe  of  fFroag  is  always  Rigbt.  But  I  am  quite  afhamed  of 
my  Anonymous — Let  the  Reader  only  take  notice,  that  this  is  the  fole 
Point  now  remaining  in  DIfpute  between  us. 

".  As  to  the  Palmary  Argument,  (of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and 
Punifhments  not  being  known  to  the  Jews,  or  making  part  of  their  national 
Doftrine  from  Mofes  to  the  Captivity)  taken  from  the  Confideration  of 
their  whole  Hijlory,  as  delivered  in  the  Bible  ;  which  the  Reader  has  an  Ac- 
count of  in  p.  I02,  of  this  Review,  our  Anfwerer  has  not  fo  much  as  at- 
tempted to  touch  upon  it  :  Though  againft  him,  who  owns  Mofes  neither 
did,  nor  could  teach  a  future  State,  it  comes  with  a  redoubled  Bound.  In- 
deed at  page  102,  of  his  Pamphlet,  he  has  the  Courage  to  quote  it  in 
part,  and  ftill  greater  neither  to  pretend  to  anfwer  it,  nor  to  confefs  Its 
Force  ;  but,  to  end  all,  he  drops  it  In  this  manner. — Why  truly.  Sir,  there 
is  a  Difficulty  in  conceiving  it :  And  yet  were  the  Cafe  as  you  have  reprefented 
it,  1  Jhoidd  not  venture  to  call  it  a  Demonstration.  Mere  negative  Proofs 
are  of  all  others  mojl  uncertain,  &c.  Venture !  Why  I  fee  you'  dare  not  ven- 
ture fo  much  as  to  look  it  in  the  Face.  And  what  you  may  call  it  behind 
its  Back,  will  be  but  the  railing  of  a  bafiled  Coward.  Noj  your  Genius 
has  directed  you  to  a  fitter  Tafk  ;  and  you  go  on  to  prove  that  the  Body  of 

the 


Append.     OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.        349 

the  Jews  had  the  Dodtrine,  from  Texts  nothing  relating  to  the  Matter 
but  fuch  as  have  been  forced  into  this  Service  by  Jews  and  Syftem-ma- 
kers— .as,  Days  of  Vilgrimage — hdn^  gather  d  to  their  Fathers-— givhi^  up  the 
GhoJ— God's  bringing  every  IVork  into  Judgmen! — the  Righteous  having  Hope 
in  his  Death — David's  Hope  being  in  God— his  being  a  Stranger  and  Sojour. 

tier And  the  Joke  of  it  is,  he  tells  me  I  might  have  found  out  this 

Meaning  in  them  too,  had  I  but  confulted  his  Coninhnlators.  And  with 
this  miferable  recoEia  crambe  his  whole  Pamphlet  is  fluffed  out  from  Side 
to  Side. 

4.  I  had  introduced  my  Evidence  from  the  Writers  of  the  New  Tcfta- 
ment  in  this  manner.  ''"  But  what  is  of  greateft  Weight,  the  infpired 
«  Writers  of  the  New  Teftament  exprefs.ly  declare  the  fame.  They  alfure 
"us  that  the  Dodrine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifnments  did 
"  not  make  part  of  the  Mtfaic  Difpcnfation  *.''  On  which  our  Wri;er  thus 
"  remarks  :  The  Chrillian  Reader  perhaps  may  be  at  a  Lofs  to  know  why 
*'  the  Teftimony  of  the  infpired  Writers  of  the  New  Teftament  ftiould 
"  be  of  greater  Weight  in  this  Cafe  than  the  infpired  Writers  of  the  Old. 
♦♦  But  what  is  worfe,  Unbelievers  (for  whofe  Convidtion  I  prefume  your 
*«  Demonftratioa  is  intended)  may  afk  by  what  Right  the  Authors  of  the 
«'  NeW  Teftament  cume  to  be  admitted  as  Evidence,  who  lived  at  the 
*■'  Diflance  of  fo  many  hundred  Years,  &c.  -f ."  Which  (hail  we  here 
mofl  admire  ?  the  charitable  Infinuation  in  the  firft  part  ?  or  the  llirewd 
Remark  in  the  fecond  ?  Thou  Flower  of  Divines  !  I  did  not  fay  that 
the  Teflimojiy  of  the  infpired  Writers  of  the  New  Teftament  has  greater 
Weight  than  an  equal  Teftimony  of  the  infpired  Writers  of  the  Old.  But 
that  their  Teflimony  in  the  Cafe  in  hand  had  greater  Weight,  as  (in  the 
Opinion  of  fuch  as  you  whom  I  am  here  endeavouring  in  vain  to  convince) 
a  pofitive  Proof  by  exprefs  Declaration,  is  ftronger  than  a  Negative  arifing 
from  an  Omiffion.  It  was  but  juft  before  this  very  Man  was  quarrellino- 
with  negative  Evidence.  But  what  is  worfe,  fays  he,  Unbelievers  may  ajk, 
&c.  What  !  that  which  nothing  concerns  them  ?  I  had  obfcrved  over 
and  over  that  they  all  agreed  to  this  Truth,  and  that  therefore,  in  this  Parf^ 
I  addrelled  myfelf  to  Believers.  But,,  afhamed  himlelf  of  this  Difmgeuuity^ 
he  retradts  his  OAn  Objcd:ion  : — But  as  I  am  arguing,  fays  he,  TcvV/j  you  on 
Chrijlian  Principles,  I  can  have  no  Benefit  from  this  Pua  X.     And  was  ncc  I 

*  Div.  Leg.  Book  V.  Scd.  VI.  init.  f  I'.  66.  J  I',  by. 

arguing; 


35D  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL       Append. 

arguing  wlih  him,  as  well  as  he  with  me?     Can  he  blulh  for  this,   or 
nnirt  I  ? 

5.  In  Seift.  VI,  of  the  Fifth  Book  of  T^he  Divine  Legation,  where  I  en- 
deavour to  prove  the  minor  Propofition  from  the  New  Teftament,  I  intro- 
duce the  Difcourfe  thus,  "  This  Evidence  may  be  divided  into  two  Parts, 
"  the  firjl  proving  that  temporal  Rewards  and  Punifliments  were  the 
**  SmSiionoi \.\\t  J ewijh  Difpenfatioa ;  the  fecoiid,  that  it  had  no  other  *." 
Now  let  the  Reader  turn  to  this  Writer,  p.  67,  i^feq.  and  he  will  fee  how, 
by  the  viieft  Prevarication,  he  has  argued  againft  the  firj}  fort  brought  by 
me  to  prove  temporal  Rewards  the  SanSIion,  as  if  I  had  brought  them  to  the 
fiime  Purpofe  with  the  fecond,  namely,  to  prove,  that  there  wes  no  other. 

6.  With  the  fame  Spirit  it  is  that  he  endeavours  to  make  me  contradidl 
myfelf  -f-,  where  in  one  place  ;{:,  fpeaking  of  the  Patriarchs  (who,  I  own, 
referred  to  Heb.  chap.  xi.  ver.  13,  and  \\.  faia  the  Promifes  afar  off  and 
tuere  perfuaded,  &e.)  I  fay  that  even  they,  the  facred  Writer  affures  us,  had  not 
received  the  Promifes,  referring  to  ver.  39.  And,  in  another  place  §,  fpeak- 
ing of  the  fame  39th  Verfe,  I  fay  the  facred  Writer  is  fpeaking  here  of  the 

faithful  Ifraelites  in  general.  Hence  this  great  Critic  lays  I  am  guilty  of 
a  manifeft  ContradiiJion,  and  laments  in  his  kind  way,  that  thcfe  Paffages 
are  both  fuffered  tojland  to  fmme  one  another,  p. 97.  They  fhall  ftand  for  a 
better  Purpofe,  to  Jhame  all  fuch  Scribblers  as  are  not  yet  come  to  their 
Elements ;  and  do  not  fo  much  as  know  that  omne  majus  continet  in  fe  mi- 
nus. For  if  in  Verfe  39  the  facred  Writer  be  fpeaking  of  the  faithful 
Ifraelites  in  general,  had  I  not  Reafon  to  fay  from  thence,  that  EVEN  the 
Patriarchs  were  included  ?  However,  he  might  at  leaft  have  underftood  fo 
much  Englijh  as  to  know  that  the  Conjundion  even  implies  not  Exclufion, 
but  Extenfion. 

7.  He  infults  mc,  and  puzzles  himfelf  with  this  'Queflion,  "  If  the  an- 
■"  cicnt  Heathen  Legiflators  taught  it  [a  future  State]  or  if  the  main  Body 
"  of  the  Jcwijli  Nation  believed  it  before  the  coming  of  Chrift,  how  was  it 
"  brought  to  light  by  the  Gofpel?  If  this  Text  will  ftand  with  fuppofing 
*'  that  the  general  Knowledge  of  a  future  State  was  generally  re- 
•*  ceived  amongft  the  Jevis  from  the  Time  of  the  Maccabees  dovsn  to 
"  Chrift,  will  you  be  pleafed  to  inform  me  why  it  will  not  as  well 
*'  ftand  with    fuppofing    that  they  had  this  Doftrine  for  as  many  ages 

*  Divine  Legation,  vol.  III.  p.  155.  f  Page  97. 

X   Divine  Legation,  vol,  111.  p.  355*  §  Page  591. 

"  back- 


Append.     O  C  C  A  S  J  0  N  A  L    R  E  F  L  E  C  T  I  O  NS.      351' 

"  backward." And  for  fear  I   (hould  not  anfwcr  him  (as  indeed  he 

had  Reafon)  he  anf-\ers  it  himfelf.  To  bring  to  Light  docs  r.ct  hc^c  fig- 
nify  to  dif cover  ivhat  before  zcas  abfilutely  unknown.  Jt  ftgnijics  there- 
fore the  mere  open  or  pubic  Munifijlation  of  what  before  was  known  either 
iw.pcrfeStly  or  but  to  a  few  *.  ligregious  Divine  !  If  it  does  not  fignify  that 
(you  fay)  it  muft  fignify  this.  Beat  your  Brain?  no  further  :  For  once  I'll 
tell  you,  it  fignifies  neither  ;  but  (whal  your  Syftems  never  dreamt  of)  that 
this  was  the  firft  Time  of  its  being  revcakd  by  God,  either  to  the  JewiJIj 
People  as  a  Nation,  or  to  Mankind  in  general.  The  facred  Writer  did 
not  deign  to  call  that,  bringing  to  light,  which  was  hatched  in  the  bofom 
of  Superilitioii,  and  foon  became  polluted  with  a  thoufand  Fables  in  pafT- 
jng  through  the  impure  Hands  of  Syftem-making  Jews  and  Gentiks.  From 
whence  I  reafonably  concluded  it  was  never  taught  by,  God  to  the  Jewijb 
People  throughout  the  Period  in  queflion.  What  was  taught  by  Man  is 
another  thing,  and  entirely  out  of  the  queflion.  But  you  do  not  underfland 
this :  I  believe  fo  :  Nor,  I  will  fiy  that  for  you,  fcarce  any  one  general 
Fropofition  throughout  my  whole  Book. 

8.  I  faid  that  the  Dodtnne  of  a  future  Life  and  Rcfurrcflion  was  not 
national  till  the  Time  of  the  Maccabees.  He  tells  me,  he  knows  I  will  juy 
that  they  h,\d  it  from  the  Prophets,  yet  the  Prophets  were  dead  two  hundred 
Tears  before.  Why  then  (fays  he)  could  not  the  Jews  learn  this  DoElrinefrcm 
the  very  firfi,  as  well  as  their  Pojlerity  at  the  Dijlance  of  Ages  afurwards  -)~  ? 
This  forely  diftrefles  our  Theologafter  :  Yet  inllead  of  humbling  himfelf 
tinder  the  Weight  of  his  own  Dulnefs,  he  turns,  as  is  his  Way  through- 
out, to  infult  the  Author  of  The  Divine  Legation.  Now,  though  this 
Ufagedeferve  no  Favour,  I  will  try  to  open  his  Underflanding. — ^The  Pro- 
phets had  exprefTed  a  temporal  Defrudton  and  Rcjloration  in  the  figurative 
Terms  of  Death  and  RefurreHion.  This  being  agreeable  to  the  Language 
of  thofe  Times,  the  People,  full  only  of  ideas  of  a  temporal  Nature,  refled 
in  the  primary  Senfe.  But  when  by  the  total  withdrawing  the  extraordinary 
Providence  of  God,  thefe  People  (who  had  right  Notions  of  his  Being  and 
Attributes)  had  once  begun  to  entertain  the  reafonable  Hopes  of  a  future 
State  ;  they  would  then  as  naturally  fearch  their  Scriptures  for  Support. 
And  then  it  was  they  firft  began  to  underfland  that  thofe  Prophccie?  had 
afecondary  Senfe,  and  a  fublimer  Meaning.  In  thisSenfe,  and  on  this  Ao- 
count  it  is  that  1  fay,  they  receive  the  Doilrine  of  the  Refurrcc/ion  from  the, 

*  I'age?^,  73«  t  Page  n^,  "3« 

PropbelS:^. 


oj.  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL  Append. 

Prophets.  It  he  a(k  me,  with  his  ufual  Infolcnce,  how  I  come  to  know 
•that  rhey  received  the  Doftrine  of  the  Refurreclion  from  the  Prophets,  I  will 
tell  him  this  too,  which  is  more  than  his  Geneva  Syftems  could  inform  him 
of,  that  the  Dodrinc  was  no  where  elie  to  be  had.  If  all  this  will  not  fa- 
tisfy  him,  let  us  turn  the  Tables,  while  /  quejiion  him.  Ihe  Prophets 
prophefy  of  the  Birth,  OiBce,  Death,  and  Paflion  of  Jefus.  The  Jews  in 
general,  till  the  coming  of  Chriji,  and  fome  time  after,  miftook  this 
Prophefy  for  the  Promife  of  a  temporal  Deliverer,  quite  different  from  the 
Meffiah  of  Mankind  ;  Yet,  after  the  Refurredtion,  they  underftood  better. 
Hozvfo  ?  I  ailv  in  his  own  Words,  Is  it  likely  that  the  Sons  Jhould  have  learnt 
from  the  dead  Prophets  what  the  Fathers  could  not  learn  from  the  Living  *  ? 
He  would  be  hard  put  to  it,  I  believe,  for  a  pertinent  Reply,  without 
■condefcending  to  ufe  the  Anfwer  I  have  provided  for  him  above, — What 
is  here  faid  will  ferve  for  an  Anfwer  to  the  fame  kind  of  Objedion  urged 
again  at  page  50.  where,  from  my  owning  that  fome  Paffages,  which  relate 
literally  to  temporal  Things,  had  a  fpititual  and  fublimer  Meaning,  he  fup- 
pofes  the  Jews  of  thofe  Times  muft  needs  have  found  it  out. 

9.  Again,  *'  Though  here  (fays  he)  you  feem  to  be  of  Opinion  that  it 
*'  will  in  7ioth\ng  afied  the  PraSIice  of  VirtU!  whether.a  future  State  is  be- 
"  lieved  or  not,  provided  the  Will  of  God  is  allowed  to  be  the  Foundation  of 
"  Morality ;  yet,  in  your  Preface  to  the  Jews,  you  tell  them  that  the 
*•  J euiJJj  Religion  mujl  want  much  of  ab folate  PerfeBion  becaufe  it  wants  a 
"  Do^riiiefo  ejjenfial  to  Relgion.  It  is  inexplicable  to  me,  Sir,  how  that 
"  fliould  be  eflential  to  Religion,  by  the  Want  of  which  the  Pradlice  of 
*'  Virtue  will  in  nothing  be  affedled  -j-." — And  are  you  indeed  fo  dull  as 
you  pretend  ?  or  is  this  only  a  Maik  for  your  Modefly,  to  hide  your  Blufli- 
es,  for  fo  fliamelefs  a  Prevarication  ?  What  Man  living  but  your  learned 
felf  does  not  fee,  that  where  I  fpeak,  in  the  firft  Cafe,  of  the  Pradtice 
of  Virtue,  on,  what  /  call,  the  true  Foundation  of  Morality  X,  I  am  conlider- 
ing  it  under  an  extraordinary  Providence  amongft  the  Jews  of  old  :  And 
where,  in  the  Preface,  of  a  future  State  as  eflential  to  Religion,  I  am  con- 
fidcring  it  under  an  ordinary  and  common  Providence,  amongft  the  §  Jews 
of  the  prefent  Times.'  Yet  in  this  very  Page  |)  has  this  Man  the  modeft 
Aflurance  to  fay.  Truth  is  what  I  seek. — It  may  prjfibly  be  fo;  and 
therefore  I  will  take  a  little  more  Pains  with  him.     What  then,  let  me 

*  Pagciij.  t  Page  i-^r,,   131,  +   Divine  Legation,  vol. III.  p.  98. 

§  Psge  23-  II  r.ige  131. 

aik 


Append.     OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         3S3 

aik  him,  has  the  Purity  of  Virtue  to  do  with  the  PerfeElion  of  Religion, 
fo  as  that  they  muft  neceflarily  imply  one  another  ;  and  I  be  accufed  of 
Contradidion,  for  faying,  that  the  JeiviJIi  Virtue  was  pure,  and  yet  their 
Religion  imperfe£i  ?  Will  not  this  very  Man  himfclf  fay  the  fame  Thing, 
though,  I  ween,  for  different  Reafons  ?  But  do  the  different  Reafons  of 
an  Affertion,  make  the  fame  Affcrtion  a  ContradiPAon  in  me,  and  a  plain 
Truth  in  him  ?  Allow  him  but  a  future  State  for  his  Jev:s,  and  their  Vir- 
tue, then,  becomes /)arf ;  But  will  he  fay  their  Religion  is  perfeU  ?  But, 
becaufe  there  can  be  no  pcrft6l  Religion  without  pure  Virtue,  he  con- 
cluded the  other  way,  that  there  could  be  no  pure  Virtue  without  a  perfc^ 
Religion ;  and  fo  has  catched  me  in  his  Contradid:ion-Trap,  which  he  has 
laid,  with  the  fame  Succefs,  I  don't  know  how  often,  throughout  the  Courfe 
of  this  Debate. 

And  here  the  judicious  Reader,  I  am  fure,  cannot  but  fmile  to  fee  him 
inlinuate  *,  with  a  Sneer,  that  Bifliop  Bull  muft  needs  be  a  Stranger  to  my 
Scheme,  as  he  thinks  it,  of  mcral  Obligation.  He  fiippofed,  in  good 
earneft,  the  Bifhop  could  read  his  Bible,  as  he  has  done,  without  feeing 
that  the  Ground  of  this  Obligation  is  there  made  to  be  the  Will  of  God.  But 
this  it  is  to  have  to  do  with  a  Head  whofe  Scnfe  is  all  run  to  Syftem. 

lo.  Once  more.  In  that  mifcrable  fophiftical  Shuffle  with  thofe  few  of 
my  Arguments,  on  the  Cafe  of  Abraham,  which  he  dares  venture  to  en- 
counter in  his  Appendix,  he  brings  it  as  a  Co?itradidion,  that,  after  I  had 
faid,  the  Information,  conveyed  in  the  Command  to  offer  Ifaac,  was  for 
Abraham's  file  life,  I  Ihould  then  fuppofe  his  Family  knew  of  it.  And  in 
this  he  triumphs  with  his  ufual  Vivacity  and  Succefs  f.  Here  again  I  am 
at  a  Lofs,  as  things  are  fo  equally  balanced,  to  know  which  was  at  Fault 
in  this  Place,  his  Head  or  Heart ;  but  no  matter  :  They  are  both  part  my 
mending.  I  will  turn  to  the  Reader. — Where  I  fpeak  of  the  Informations 
being  given  for  Abraham'j  file  life,  I  am  affigning  a  Reafon  for  the  Ob. 
fcurity  of  the  hiftorical  R.elation,  fo  far  as  concerns  the  Information,  which 
I  fuppofed  to  be  conveyed  in  the  Command  :  confcquently,  his  file  life,  is 
oppofed  to  the  Jewif}}  People,  when  the  Hijiory  of  the  Command  was  written  ; 
and  not  to  his  own  Family,  Ifaac  and  Jacob,  when  the  Command zvas given; 
whom  I  all  along  reckon  amongft  thofe  Patriarchs  who  had  fome  Know- 
ledge of  the  Redemption  of  Mankind — Suppofe  it  fliould  be  thought  pro. 

*  Page  129.  +  Page  167,   16S. 

Vol.  VI.  Z  z  per 


;54  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL  Append. 

per  to  give  this  Man  a  Dignity  for  his  Works'  Sake,  in  this  Labour  of  Love -, 
and  he  Ihould  be  told  it  was  for  his  fih  Ufi ;  he  would  be  apt,  I  fufpeft, 
to  think  that  this  rarher  excluded  the  Body  of  the  Poor  and  Needy,  than 
his  own  dear  Family. 

1 1.  Again "  Nor  (fays  he)  will  the  Pagan  Fable  of  Diana's  fubflitut- 

"  ing  a  Hind  in  the  Place  of  Iphigenia  at  all  help  your  Unbeliever.  Ibis 
"  did  not,  fay  you,  make  Idolaters  believe  that  foe  therefore  abhorred  human 
"  Sacrifices.  But  do  not  they  themfelves,  or  have  not  you  affigned  a  very 
«'  proper  and  fiifficicnt  Reafon  why  it  did  not,  viz.  that  they  had  been  be- 
"  fore  per fuad:d  to  the  contrary  ?  Where  human  Sacrifices  make  a  part  of 
«'  the  fettled  ftanding  Religion;  the  Refufal  to  accept  a  human  Sacrifice  in 
"  one  particular  Inflance,  may  indeed  rather  be  looked  upon  as  a  particu- 
"  lar  Indulgence  than  as  a  Declaration  againfl  the  thing  in  grofs.  But 
*'  where  the  thing  vi^as  commanded  but  in  one  fingle  Inflance,  and  the 
'«  Command  revoked  in  that  very  Inftance  (which  is  our  prefent  Cafe) 
•'  fuch  Revocation  in  all  reafonable  Conflruftion  is  as  efTedtual  a  Condem- 
*'  nation  of  the  thing  as  if  God  had  told  Abraham,  in  fa  many  Words,  that 
"  he  delighted  not  in  fuch  Sacrifices  *."  I  quote  this  out  of  mere  Cha- 
rity, becaufe  it  looks  like  Senfe;  and  is  the  only  thing  that  does  fo 
throughout  the  whole  Pamphlet.  But  this  fair  Appearance  is  only  in  Pro- 
file, What  it  has  on  one  Side,  it  wants  on  another ;  and  betrays  the 
grofTefl  Ignorance  of  Antiquity.  At  this  very  time  human  Sacrifices  had 
overfpread  the  Superflltion  of  Canaan.  And  thence  it  is  that  the  Deifl's 
Argument  receives  its  Force.  The  Family  of  Abraham,  fay  they,  who 
found  the  fame  Practice  commanded  him  which  they  faw  efteemed  by  ail 
the  Pagans  round  about  as  the  fublimefl  Height  of  Piety,  a  Pradtice,  as 
appears  from  Scripture,  not pofitively  forbidden  but  by  the  Law  of  Afo/tv, 
would,  in  the  Cafe  they  put,  be  naturally  tempted  to  think  as  favourably 
of  it  as  thofe  Pagans,  who  underflood  xh^tBiana  required  Iphigenia,  though 
Ihe  accepted  a  Hind  in  her  ftcad. 

12.  After  all  thefe  Viftories,  he  may  be  well  excufed  the  interpoffng 
with  his  own  Good  Will  and  Pleafure.  "  if  it  is  your  Intention  (fays  he) 
•'  to  proceed,  and  it  were  not  too  great  a  Prefumption  in  me  to  offer  my 
"  Advice ;  it  fliould  be  to  lay  the  Weight  of  your  Argument^  not  upon 

*  Page  i6i. 

"  this. 


Append.     OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.        355 

*'  this,  that  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  a  future  State ;  but  upon  this,  that 
"  the  Law  of  Mofcs  had  made  no  Provifion  for  it.  Ik  this  Principle  is 
"  ALL  YOU  WANT,  IT  WILL  siAND,  and  you  wiU  have  nothing  to  anfvvcr 
"  for,  but  the  ill  Judgment  of  advancing  and  taking  fo  much  Pains  to 
"  fupport  another  Point  with  which  your  Conckifion  has  nothing  to  do  *." 
Goodly  and  gracious !  Here  he  Ihews  how  capable  a  Reader  he  is  of  The 
Divine  Legation.  He  confefles  not  to  know  whether  this  Friiiciplc  is  all  I 
•want  to  eftablifli  my  Demonftration ;  and  yet  he  will  turn  Anfiverer.  But 
what  the  Connexion  of  a  long  Chain  of  Reafoning  hindered  him  from 
feeing,  I  hope  this  fliort  View  will  bring  to  Light :  And  that  the  fecond 
Syllogifm  will  inform  him,  that  what  he  Grants  is  all  I  want.  For  if 
Mofes  would  leave  his  People  to  get  or  keep  a  Dodrine  as  they  could,  fo 
necefTary,  and  believed  by  him  to  be  fo  neceffary,  under  an  ordinary  Pro^ 
vidence,  to  Religion  and  Society,  wc  muft  needs  conclude,  he  was  well 
affured,  that  his  Inftitution  could  do  without  it;  or,  in  other  Words,  that 
the  Defed:  would  be  fupplied  by  the  Adminiftration  of  an  extraordinary 
Providence.  The  Difpute,  therefore,  feems  now  to  be  at  an  End  between 
us.  He  owns,  I  have  gained  my  Point :  That  I  have  got  to  the  Goal  :  All 
that  he  would  now  difpute  with  me  is  the  Road.  I  mull:  take  the  Track  he 
marks  out  to  me ;  and  /  have  nothing  to  anfwer  for  kit  the  ill  Judgment  of 
advancing  and  taking  fo  much  Pains  to  fupport  another  Point  -with  which  my 
Ccnchfion  has  nothing  to  do.  Say  you  fo,  kind  Sir  !  with  what  Face  then 
could  you  tell  the  World,  juft  before,  that  I  ought  to  make  Ametids  for  the 
Wrong  I  have  done  to  Religion  in  the  fecond  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legation, 
in  which,  injlead  of  placing  Chujlianity  on  a  furer  Botto?n,  I  hare  only  fur- 
niflied  out  more  Handles  to  Unbelievers -f  ?  What  !  Is  proving  the  Divinity 
of  Mofes's  Religion,  a  Thing  for  which  I  ought  to  make  Amends  and  re- 
pent, as  a  Wrong  done  to  Chriftianity  ?  Suppofe  I  was  willing  to  fupport 
the  Proof  in  a  Way  you  do  not  like  ;  you  confefs  that,  in  this,  /  have  no- 
thing to  anfwer  for  but  the  ill  Judgment  of  taking  Pains  to  fupport  another 
Point  with  zvhich  my  Conclufton  has  nothing  to  do.  Am  I  therefore,  for  my 
;■//  Judgment,  to  be  ranked  amongft  the  injurious  Subverters  of  Revelation? 
What  then  will  become  of  you?  But  fuch  as  thcfe  feem  to  care  little 
whether  Religion  be  true  or  falfe,  unlcfs  it  can  be  fupported  on  their  Syf- 

»  Page  134.  t  Tnge  132. 

Z  z  2  terns. 


356  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL  Append. 

terns.  They  had  been  bred  up  in  the  Belief  that  the  old  °Jms,  as  well  as 
their  L/ra',  wxxe  fpiritual,  and  then 

— Twpc  put  ant  parcre  vihwribus,  &  qua 

Imherks  didLere,  finis  pcrdenda  fateri. 

After  this,  it  was  in  vain  for  the  Apoftle  to  tell  them,  in  the  Perfon  of  a 
Jnv,  ff^e  know  that  the  Law  is  spiritual,  but  lam  carnal.  However 
let  him  fct  his  Heart  at  reft  (if  at  leaft  the  Confcience  of  fo  unjuft  a  Ca- 
lumny will  fufter  him).  For  though  this  Principle,  t/jat  the  Law  s/Mofcs 
made  no  Provlficnfor  a  future  State,  be  all  I  want  to  fupport  my  Uemon- 
ftration ;  yet  1  mean,  I  can  alfure  him,  to  fecurc  it  with  this  other,  that 
the  Body  of  the  Jews  for  fome  Ages  knew  nothing  of  it.  This  I  ftiould  do, 
were  it  for  nothing  elfe  but  that  it  is  a  Truth  offenfive  to  Bigots  and  their 
Syftcms ;  by  which  they  have  done  their  beft  to  render  both  the  Word  xif 
Cod,  and  Reafon  of  Man,  of  no  Effcd.  But  I  have  weightier  Motives  : 
I  fliall  make  it  ferve  for  the  noblefl;  Purpofcs  of  religious  Truth  and 
Piety. 

But  why  do  I  fpeak  of  thefe  Matters  to  him  ;  who  is  fo  exceeding  igno- 
rant even  of  the  very  Forms  of  Argument,  that,  having  given  us  to  under- 
ftand  that  he  faw  I  had  finifhed  the  major  Propofition  in  the  firft  Volume, 
and  the  mi/or  in  the  fecond,  he  goes  on  thus — "  As  your  Conclufwn  is  to 
"  be  the  Subjed:  of  a  future  Book,  I  think  I  have  no  Right  to  meddle 
"  with  it  at  prefent.  I  will  prejudge  you  in  nothing,  and  fliall  therefore 
"  leave  you  at  full  Liberty  to  connect  it  with  your  Premisses,  as  your 
"  fhall  find  yourfelf  able  *  ?"  Here  he  plainly  appears  not  to  underftand 
what  natural  Connexion  there  is  between  the  Major,  Minor,  and  Conclufwn. 
I  had  learnt  that  the  Conclusion  had  been  connected  with  the  Premis- 
ses by  A;>/;^  long  ago ;  but  it  feems,  fo  unhappy  ftill  ami,  that  the 
thing  is  yet  to  do.  Thanks  indeed  to  this  merciful  Divine! — L am  left  ai 
full  Liberty  to  do  it,  as  Ifmllfind  myfclf  able. 

13.  But  one  Word  more,  and  I  have  done.  "  Whether  (fays  he)  you 
"  intend  to  proceed,  or  will  fuffer  yourfelf  to  be  wholly  diverted  from  your 
"  Purpofe  by  Matters  of  another  kind  lefs  fuitable  to  your  clerical  Funaion, 
"  you  hefl  know.  But  give  me  leave  to  fay.  Sir,  you  are  a  Debtor  to  the 
"  Public ;  and  I  hope  that  in  your  next  Volume  you  will  make  fome 

*  Page  4. 

*'  amends. 


Append.    OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         357 

*'  amends,  for  the  Wrong  you  have  done  to  Religion  in  this;  in  which,  in- 
*'  ftciid  of  placing  Chriftianity  upon  a  furcr  bottom,  you  have  only  fur- 
"  niflied  out  more  Handles  to  Unbel:evcrs  *."  I  fcarce  know  whether  I  am 
not  to  take  this  for  pure  Kindnefs,  and  a  fort  of  friendly  Impatience  for 
my  third  Volume;  Which  certainly,  if  it  would  hold,  he  has  contrived  a 
very  fpeedy  Way  to  obtain  :  And  that  is  by  proving  it  a  Del>t.  And  this 
at  leaft  I  will  do  him  the  Juftice  to  fay,  that  if  I  be  a  Del/tor  to  the  Public^ 
it  mull  be  for  the  Reafon  he  fo  candidly  fuggcfts,  or  none  at  all.  Bur,  alas  ! 
he  has,  as  a  good  Friend  in  the  like  Cafe  might  have,  his  Doubts  and  his 
Fears.  He  queftions  whether  I  will  not  fuffcr  myfelf  to  be  wholly  diverted 
from  my  Purpofc  by  Matters  of  another  kind  lefsfuitable  to  my  clerical  Func- 
tion. Lefs  fuitable  than  what  ?  why,  according  to  him,  thzn  writing  to  the 
Wrong  and  Injury  of  Religion,  and  giving  more  Handles  to  Unbelievers. 
What  I  am  then  diverted  by,,  mufl  be  very  unfuitahle  indeed.  But  will  the 
good  Man  be  fo  kind  to  tell  us  what  this  Diver/ton  is  ?  Thank  you  for  that 
indeed.  As  Things  are  now  carried,  and  left  in  the  Dark,  who  knows  but 
the  Reader,,  in  Excefs  of  Charity,  may  take  it  to  be  a  Whore,  or  a  Horfe- 
race,  or  a  good  Job  of  Simony ;  a  Party  Pamphlet,  or  Levy-hunting,  or 
Exchange  Alley,  or,  in  fliort,  twenty  Things  befides ;  each  of  them  fuf- 
ficient  to  difcredit  the  mere  unorthodox  I\Tan  !  With  this  good  Luck,  I 
make  no  Doubt  but  he  would  ivipe  his  Mouth  and  applaud  his  innocent 
Addrefs.  Well  then,  fince  the  Meannefs  and  Malignity  of  his  Heart  will 
not  fuffer  hi?n  to  tell,  /  will.  The  Diverfion  he  hints  at,  and  yet  dare  not 
name,  is  a  Critical  Defence  and  Illuftration  of  the  Writings  of  one  of  the 
greateft  Geniufes  of  this,  or  indeed  of  any  Age,  to  convince  the  Prejudiced 
and  Ignorant,  that  the  incomparable  Writer  hath  been  always  on  the  Side 
of  Truth,  Virtue,  and  Religion.  And  now  the  Secret  is  out.  In  the 
mean  time,  I  dare  fuppofe,  that  our  Anonymous  holds  it  as  a  Thing  very 
fuitable  to  clerical  Profejfwn,  to  calumniate  his  Brother  only  for  differing, 
from  him  in  Opinion,  though  in  the  Support  of  that  very  Caufc  which 
himfelf  pretends  to  efpoufe.  I  give  Handles  to  Unbelievers,  while  I  endea- 
vour to  prove  an  extraordinary  Providence,  adminiflered  in  the  fcwifh  Re- 
public, a  Fa(fl,  by  the  Truth  or  Fallhood  of  which,  the  Religion  oi  Mofes 
muft  ftand  or  fall.  But  this  Man  and  his  Fellows,  itfeems,  give  none,  who,, 
in  writing  againft  me,  are  fo  far  from  faying  one  Word  in  its  behalf,  that 

*  Page  132. 

they 


33S  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL       Append. 

riicy  fccm  rather  to  treat  it  as  a  Vifion  of  the  Author  of  the  D.  L.  This 
Writer  particularly  feems  to  have  given  no  obfcure  Intimations,  up  and 
down  his  Pamphlet,  that  he  believes  nothing  of  the  Matter.  But  how  has 
my  faying,  that  the  Dodlrine  was  not  national,  but  unknown  to  the  Body 
oUhcJewiJh  People  between  the  Times  of  A/o/'j  and  the  Captivity,  given 
more  Handles  to  Unbelievers  ?  W'as  I  the  firfl:  Broacher  of  the  Opinion  ? 
Look,  upon  the  three  great  Teftimonies  above.  Or  would  it  have  remained 
hid,  had  I  not  divulged  it  ?  Has  this  Man  never  heard  of  the  prefent 
Overflow  of  Infidelity  ?  Or 'has  he  ever  heard  of  on^  Deiji  that  believed 
a  future  State  to  be  a  national  Dodrine  amongfl:  the  Jews  within  the  Pe- 
riod aforefaid  ?  Or,  to  be  plain  with  him,  is  there  indeed  more  than  a 
few  Bigots  like  himfelf  that  now  believe  it  ?  What  was  then  to  be  done  ? 
Here  was  a  very  general  Opinion,  grounded  upon  common  Senfe,  fuppofed 
to  be  difcreditable  to  Revelation,  I  examined  it.  On  Examination  it  ap- 
peared to  me  a  Truth.  Was  I  to  difguife  or  hide  it  (according  to  the 
Principle  and  Pra<ftices  of  thefe  Men)  becaufe  it  gave  Scandal  ?  Far 
be  thofe  Arts  from  every  Minifler  of  the  Gofpcl  !  I  well  knew,  if  it 
were  a  Truth,  it  would  never  hurt  Revelation.  I  chofe  then  to  give 
Glory  to  Truth  -,  and,  in  that,  to  the  God  of  Truth  :  and,  by  fo  doing, 
I  became  enabled  to  demonftrate  to  Unbelievers  that  this,  which  they 
efteemed  a  Difcredit  to  the  Religion  of  Mofes,  was  a  convincing  Mark 
of  its  Divinity.  And  for  this,  and  this  only,  I  am  faid  by  this  Writer 
to  have  -wronged  Religiov,  and  given  more  Handles  to  Infidelity,  But  I  for- 
give him,  and  pray  that  God,  whofe  holy  Religion  I  am  defending,  may 
forgive  him  too. 

14.  But  the  Reader,  by  this  time,  mud  needs  be  curious  to  know  what 
it  was  that  could  provoke  our  Anonymous  to  write  with  fo  much  Acrimony 
again  ft  his  Brother,  embarked  with  him   in  the  fame  Caufe  of  Religion, 
while  there  were  fo  many  Infidcl-zvriters  remaining  unanfwered, 
Cumque  fuperba  foret  Babylon  fpolianda  trophais. 

And  for  what  ?  a  Viiion,  nobody  will  thank  him  for,  unlefs  it  be  half  a 
Dozen  Bigots :  Always  excepting  the  venerable  Jcwijh  Church,  of  which 
he  has  fhewn  himfelf  fo  zealous  a  Support.  She  furely  owes  him  her  beft 
Acknowledgments  for  keeping  her  Children  clofe  attached  to  her,  and 
hardening  them  in  their  Infidelity.     For,  were  it  not  for  this  inveterate 

Error, 


Append.    OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.       ^^59 

Error,  they  had  long  fince  come  over  to  the  Faith  of  jfefusy  there  beinf 
then  nothing  to  obftrudt  their  Sight  in  the  manifcfl;  hnperfctlion  of  the  Lain : 
to  prevent  which,  their  Leaders,  as  the  great  Epifcopius  informs  us,  took 
fo  much  Pains  (fo  well  feconded  here  by  our  Anonymous)  to  assert  the 
Faith  of  the  ancient  Jewish  Church  ;  and  to  prove,  that  their  Fore- 
fathers always  had  the  Doftrine  of  a  future  State,  ^icquid  nunc  Judoci  mul- 
tun  de  futuro  fectilo  de  RefurrcSlione  inortuorum,  de  vita  aterna  loquantur,  i^ 
ex  Legis  verbis  ea  extorqvere  potim  quam  ojlendere  conentuVy  ne  leg  km  Mojis 
IMPERFECTAM  ESSE  cogatitur  agncfccrc*.  Foe  he  cannot  fure  be  fo  weak, 
to  think  it  poffible,  that,  when  he  has  agreed  with  them,  that  their  Church 
always  had  a  future  State,  they  will  agree  with  him,  that  Mofcs  did  not 
teach  it.  All  this  confidercd,  it  would  have  been  very  difficult  to  divine 
his  Motive  for  writing  agaiuft  me,  had  not  he  himfclf  fairly,  and  without 
Difguife,  informed  us  of  it,  in  the  very  Entrance  on  his  Work.  Not  to 
mince  the  Matter,  it  was  that  little  Reputation,  (yet  more  than  he  could 
bear)  which,  it  feems,  the  Divine  Lfg-^/ZoK  had  accidentally  bellowed  upon 
its  Author. — "  That  you  have  given  (fays  our  Anonymous)  great  Proofs  of 
*'  your  Learning  and  Ingenuity  I  fhall  not  difpute  :  And  you  have  had  a 
*'  fair  Time  allowed  you  to  receive  the  Compliments  of  the  Public  on 
*'  that  Score.  It  may  now  be  feafonable  to  call  you  to  fomcthing,  which, 
"  though  perhaps  lefs  agreeable  to  you,  may  yet  be  more  profitable  ;  and 
"  that  is,  to  confider  how  much  Truth  you  have  advanced,  and  what  real 
"  Service  you  have  done,  or  are  likely  to  do  to  Religion  by  this  Under- 
♦'  taking  -j-."  And  why  will  he  not  difpute  the  great  Pioofs  of  my  Learning 
and  Ingenuity  ?  He  has  difputed  a  more  inconteflable  thing ;  the  Truthy 
which  that  Learning  and  Ingenuity  were  employed  to  illuftrate  :  and,  if 
thefe  appeared  with  any  Diftindtion,  it  was  folely  owing  to  the  Advantage 
of  the  Subjea. 

But  I  have  had  a  fair  Time  allowed  me  to  receive  the  Compliments  of  the 
Public.  How  allowed  me  ?  and  by  whom  ?  certainly  not  by  fuch  Writers 
as  thefe.  For  if  their  Clamours  could  have  prevailed,  I  had  received  the 
public  Odium  rather  than  its  Compliments.  And  the  Reader  may  fee,  by 
the  fliort  Lift  given  of  them  in  the  Beginning  of  this  Pamphlet,  that  thofe 
Clamours  begun  the  very  Moment  the  firfl  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legation 

*    See  the  Quotation  above.  f  Page  34. 

ap- 


^o  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL        Append. 

appeared  ;    and  have  continued  ever  fince,  without  Interruption,  to  the 
Publication  of  our  Author's  Epiplary  Di/erlation. 

But,  after  all,  what  were  thcfc  Compliments?  And  where  have  they  lain 
hid  ?  Nothing,  from  the  Public,  ever  came  to  my  Knowledge  but  the 
Cilumnici  of  my  Advcrfaries.  In  fome  Scnfe,  indeed,  thefe  may  be  called 
Compl'mcnts,  and  fubftantial  ones  too.  For,  next  to  the  old  way  of  com- 
plimenting, Lauikri  a  laudato  Viro,  I  prize  the  new,  now  all  in  Fafhion, 
vituperari  a  fcrdit'tjfmo  quoque.  He,  perhaps,  may  think  the  Sale  of 
the  Book  a  good  fubflantial  Compliment.  But,  for  that,  my  Bookfeller 
mud  thank  them ;  efpccially  if  he  gave  them  not  their  Pennyworth  for 
their  Money. 

However,  to  take  thefe  Compliments  in  their  obvious  Senfe.  I  know  of 
nothing  for  which  I  had  more  Reafon  to  expedt  the  Compliments  of  tfte 
Public  than  for  the  Alliance  between  Church  and  State,  as  it  was  a  Defence 
(and  I  will  prefume,  from  its  being  yet  unanfwered,  an  tffcSlual  one) 
of  the  Juftice  and  Equity  of  our  prefent  happy  Eftablifhment ;  at  a  Time 
when  the  Enemies  of  all  Church  Eftablifliments  were  commonly  fuppofed 
to  have  demonftrated  it  to  be  indefenfible.  Yet  what  public  Compliment 
did  I  ever  receive  for  this  Service  ?  unlefs  it  may  be  reckoned  a  Com- 
pliment, that  thofe,  in  whofe  Behalf  it  was  particularly  written,  have 
never  yet  publickly  difavowed  the  free  and  moderate  Principles  on  which 
it  goes.  But  that,  the  honeft  Layman  will  perhaps  fay,  is  no  bad  Com- 
pliment to  themfelves. 

I  am  here  all  along  pleading  for  my  Adverfary.  For  had  I  indeed  re- 
ceived the  Compliments  he  talks  of,  he  would  find  it  very  difficult  to  bring 
his  Modefiy  off  unhurt.  The  wrong  Judgment  of  the  Public  being,  in  that 
Cafe,  the  principal  Objedt  of  his  Pamphlet :  the  Drift  of  which  is  to  fhew 
that  I  dcferved  no  Compliment,  as  I  had  confounded  and  miftaken  the  Quef- 
tion,  run  into  Contradidions,  and  done  Injury  to  Chriflianity  :  Nay,  even 
in  this  very  place,  where  he  talks  of  the  great  Proofs  of  my  Learning  and 
Ingenuity,  he  cannot  forbear  infinuating  that  I  have  advanced  no  Truth,  nor 
done  any  real  Service  to  Religion.  Miferable  then,  indeed,  is  that  Learning 
and  Ingenuity  !  Well  does  he  fay  he  would  not  difpute  them.  For,  for 
any  thing  they  are  worth,  there  they  may  lye  ;  and  he  may  fafely  truft  to 
Time  to  revenge  his  Quarrel  on  them. 

From 


Append.     OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS.        3^)1 

From  all  this  then,  we  muft  conclude  that  thefc  public  Compliments  are 
but  the  Mormos  of  his  own  Brain  :  Things  he  rather  feared  than  fuw;  and 
that  through  the  falfe  Confcioulhefs  of  a  fuppofecl  \A'orth  he  is  no  Judge 
of.  In  this  troublefome  Situation,  the  only  way  he  had  of  eafiiig  htmfelf 
was  to  attempt  to  give  me  Pain  ;  indeed  the  only  Eafe  fuch  Writers  are  ca- 
pable of,  when  they  fee,  or  imagine  they  fee,  a  Merit  in  others,  h  is  time 
(fays  he)  to  call  you  tofomething  lefs  agreeable. 

Well,  but  if  it  be,  as  he  promifes,  more  profitable,  he  makes  me  fufli- 
dent  amends.  And  there  was  no  Danger  of  his  not  keeping  his  Word  : 
For  an  Ufe  is  always  to  be  made  of  the  Calumnies  of  one's  Enemies. 
Befides,  it  muft  be  a  poor  thing  indeed  that  will  not  afford  more  Profit 
than  the  airy  Compliments  he  talks  of :  Which  were  they  as  real  as,  for 
aught  appears,  they  are  imaginary,  I  folemnly  afTure  him,  1  would  oive 
them  all  for  the  honeft  Satisfaction  of  having  made  one  fingle  Convert; 
and  I  have  Reafon  to  hope  I  have  made  many  by  my  Writings,  from 
Irreligion  to  the  Faith  of  Jefus- 

However,  the  Profit  I  may  get  by  an  Adverfary  is  one  thing ;  and  the 
Profit  he  may  propcfe  is  another.  Let  us  fee  then  what  our  Anonymous  aims 
at.  It  is  (he  tells  us)  to  confider  hozv  much  Truth  I  have  advanced,  or  v>hat 
real  Service  I  have  done,  or  am  likely  to  do  to  Religion  by  this  Undertaking. 
Modeftly  intimating,  that  I  have  advanced  no  Truth ;  done  no  real  Ser. 
vice,  nor  likely  to  do  any  to  Religion.  And  now,  methinks,  I  hear  the 
equitable  and  indignant  Reader  crying  out,  Sume  fuperbiam,  &c.  And 
certainly  if  this  Liberty  may  be  allowed  in  any  Cafe,  it  muft  in  this, 
where  a  Man's  honeft  hndeavours,  in  his  proper  Station,  to  fcrve  his 
Country  and  Mankind,  are  blackened  by  the  dull  low  Envy  of  an  anony- 
mous Slanderer.  What  !  IVas  it  advancing  no  Truth,  was  it  doing  no  Ser- 
vice to  Religion,  to  confute  the  Atheiflic  Principles  of  Bnyle,  the  immoral 
Doftrine  of  Mandevile,  and  fettling  Morality  on  its  true  Bafis,  and  fliewing 
it  to  be  that  on  which  Revelation  hath  placed  it  ?  To  juflify  the  Equity 
of  an  eftablifhed  Religion  ;  vindicate  the  Chriftian  from  the  Charge  of  a 
perfecuting  Spirit  i  fliew  the  abfolute  Neceffity  of  Religion  for  the  Sup- 
port of  Society,  and  yet  that  it  had  its  Original,  neither  from  Priefts  nor 
Statefmen,  but  from  Truth,  and  Truth's  great  Author?  Again,  IVas  it 
advancing  no  Truth,  ivas  it  doing  no  Service  to  Religion,  to  fliew  that  the 
Mofiiic  had  all  the  diftingujfhing  Marks  of  Divinity  j  to  vindicate  the  Bible 

Vol.  VL  A  a  a  Hiftory 


362      REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL    Append. 

Uiftory  againft  the  grcateft  modern  Philofopher  and  Chronologcr;  to  ex- 
plain the  Nature  of  rhe  ^ewifli  Theocracy,  and,  by  that,  tojuaify  the 
Equity  of  thofe  two  famous  Laws,  of  piinijlnng  for  Opinions,  and  pmijhing 
Tofterity  for  the  Crimes  of  their  forefathers  ;  to  confute  the  moft  able  Boole 
ever  wrote  againfl:  Revelation,  the  Grounds  and  Reafons  of  the  Chyif 
tian  Religion;  and,  above  all,  to  explain,  and  to  be  the  frft  who 
ever  did  explain,  the  Nature  of  Types  in  Adlon,  and  fecondary  Senfes 
in  Speech,  on  which,  depend  altogether  the  rational  Interpretation 
of  ancient  Prophecies,  and  the  Truth  of  the  Miflion  of  Jefus? — But 
for  the  further  Confutation  of  fo  wretched  a  Calumny,  the  Reader 
need  only  turn  back  again  to  the  View  I  have  here  given  of  the  Ar- 
gument of  the  Divine  Legation.  Yet  none  of  thefe  Matters,  no,  nor  an 
hundred  more,  has  he  fo  much  as  touched  upon,  or  pretended  to  confute. 
Will  he  fay  therefore  that  thefe  are  not  what  he  meant,  when  he  promifed 
to  fliew,  that  I  had  advanced  no  Truth,  done  no  real  Service  to  Religion  ? 
But  only  my  peculiar  Argument  for  The  Divine  Legation  of  Mofes.  Why 
then  did  he  make  his  Charge  fo  general,  when  his  Proof  was  fo  confined? 
As  his  Modefty  will  not  fufFer  him  to  tell,  it  fhall  be  helped  out.  The 
Reader  then  muft  know,  that  it  is  a  fundamental  Maxim  with  all  the  Wri- 
ters of  this  Clafs  (as  it  is  amongft  the  Jcfuits')  never  to  acknowledge  that 
an  Adverfary  can  do  any  thing  zvell,  left  the  Public  fhould  take  it  into 
their  Heads  that  other  things  are  not  fo  ill  as  is' reprefented.  This  is  the 
wicked  Spirit  of  Controverfy,  and  under  the  Poffeffion  of  it  I  leave 
him.  For  I  am  aftiamed  of  having  wafted  a  Moment  with  fo  unprofitable 
a  Writer. 

The  judicious  Reader,  I  am  fure,  would  not  excufe  me  if  he  thought 
many  were  fo  mifemployed.'  The  Truth  is,  the  reading  his  Book 
(which  is  the  firft  I  ever  read  through,  of  all  that  have  been  hitherto 
wrote  againft  me},  and  the  writing  this  Appendix,  took  me  up  but  a  Part 
only  of  this  one  Evening.  Though  I  have  anfwered  every  thing  in  it 
worth  Notice  :  or  that  had  the  leaft  Chance  of  mifleading  a  well-mean- 
ing Reader.  However,  if  he  will  tell  his  Name,  and  fhew  his  Face  ; 
and  it  appears  that  the  one  has  been  heard  of,  or  the  other  ever  feen 
in  good  Company,  I  do  hereby  promife  to  give  his  Confiderations  on  the 
Cafe  of  Abraham,  &c.  a  diftinft  Anfwer,  Paragraph  by  Paragraph,  in 
the  Manner  of  that,  to  one  much  his  Betters,  the  truly  learned  and  wor- 
thy 


Append.      OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.        563 

thy  Editor  of  the  Book  of  'Job.  Nay,  I  will  do  more  for  his  Encou- 
ragement :  I  will  fhew  as  particular  a  Refpedt  to  the  reji  of  his  Pamphlet ; 
but  on  this  further  Condition  however,  that  he,  at  the  fame  time,  pro- 
duce me  fome  one  competent  Judge  who  Ihali  fay,  on  his  Credit,  that 
it  deferves  any  other  Anfwer  than  what  has  been  already  given  to  it. 
But  without  this,  a  final  Adieu  to  his  Namclcfs  Nothing ;  but  with  this 
Teltimony  however,  that  a  duller,  a  more  difingenuous,  or  ignorant  Book 
I  never  read. 


December  17,  1743. 


Aaaa  POST- 


[     364     ] 


POSTSCRIPT. 


I  HAVE  faid,  that  all  this  IVriter  has  urged,  from  Texts  of  Scripture, 
to  prove  a  fulurc  Stale  in  the  Jezvijh  Difpenfation,  is  fo  utterly  con- 
temptible, and  void  of  Senfe,  as  to  deferve  no  kind  of  Anfvver.  But  that 
he  may  not  flatter  himfelf  in  the  Imagination  of  any  other  Caufe  of  my 
NcglesfV  of  him,  I  fhall  here  examine  a  fingle  Objcnion  (fent  me  in  a  pri- 
vate anonymous  Letter),  which  has  more  Plaufibility  of  Reafon  than  all  his 
Arguments,  on  this  Head,  put  together.  And,  as  the  Author's  manner 
of  communicating  it  has  the  Appearance  of  Candour  and  Love  of  Truth, 
he  will  always  deferve  more  Regard  than  a  thoufand  fuch  Writers  as  the 
Examiner  of  the  fecond  Proportion.  The  Objedtion  is  in  thefe  Words  : 
"  Mo/es  inforces  the  Obedience  of  the  Ifraelites  upon  this  Confideration, 
"  7e  Jhall  therefore  keep  my  Statutes  and  fudgments,  which  if  a  Man  do  he 
**  fmll  live  in  them  *.  Here  is  a  Promife  of  Life  made  to  thofe  who  ihould 
"  obfcf  ve  the  Statutes  and  Judgments  which  God  gave  them  by  his  Servant 
"  Mofes;  which  cannot  be  underftood  of  this  temporal  Life  only,  becaufe 
"  the  beft  Men  were  often  cut  off  in  the  midfl  of  their  Days,  and  fre- 
"  quently  fuffered  greater  Adverfities  than  the  moft  profligate  Sinners, 
"  The  Jews  therefore  have  conftantly  believed  that  it  had  a  refpeft  to  the 
"  Life  to  come.  When  the  Lawyer  in  the  Gofpel  had  made  that  moft 
"  important  Demand,  Majier,  what  fhall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  Ltfe\y  our 
"  bleflcd  Lord  refers  him  to  what  was  written  in  the  Law;  and,  upon 
"his  making  a  found  and  judicious  Anfwer,  approves  of  it;  and  for 
"  Satisfadion  to  his  Queftion  tells  him.  This  do,  and  thou  fhalt  live."— 

*  Levit.  xviii.  j.  f  Luke  x.  25. 

The 


Postscript.    OCCAS  10  N  A  L  R  EFLE  C  T  I  O  N  S.     365 

The  Objcdtlon   is  very   ingenious ;  and,  as  \vc  fliall  fee,  not  Icfs  artfully 
managed. 

Ihe  Objedor  would  have  the  Promife  of  Life  in  Leviticus  to  (ignify 
eternal  Lije.  But  St.  Paul  himfelf  has  long  ago  moderated  this  Quell  ion 
for  us,  and  declared  for  the  negative.  A  Difpute  arofe  between  him,  and 
the  Judaizing  Chriftians,  concerning  what  it  was  that  jvJUfed  before  God, 
or  intitled  to  that  eternal  Life  brought  to  light  by  the  Gofpcl.  They  held 
it  to  be  the  M'^orks  of  the  Law  (believing,  perhaps,  as  the  Objed:or  allures 
us  they  did,  that  this  Text,  in  Leviticus,  had  a  >cfpeB  to  the  Lfe  to  come)  : 
St.  Paul,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  Faith  in  Jefus  the  Meffiah,  And  thus 
he  argues — "  But  that  no  Man  is  juflified  by  the  Law  in  the  Sight  of  God 
"  it  is  evident  :  for  the  ji'fl  fhall  live  by  Faith.  And  the  Law  is  not  of 
'*  Faith,  but  the  Man  that  doth  them  fhall  live  in  them  *."— As  much  a» 
to  fay — That  no  Man  can  obtain  eternal  Life  by  virtue  of  the  Lazv  is  evi- 
dent from  one  of  your  own  Prophets  [Ha^.]  who  exprefsly  fays,  that  thejufl 
fhall  LIVE  by  Faith  ■\.  Now,  by  the  Law,  no  Rewards  are  promifed  to 
Faith,  but  to  Works  only..  The  Man  that  doth  them  (fays  the  Law,  in 
Levitt  X)  fhall  live  in  them. — Here  then  wc  fee  that  this  very  Text  which 
the  Objedtor  brings  to  prove  eternal  Life  by  the  Law,  St.  Paul  urges,  to 
prove  it  not  by  the  Law.  Let  us  attend  to  the  Apoftle's  Argument.  He 
is  to  ftievv,  that  Jiiflification,  or  eternal  Life,  is  by  Faith.  TWvs  he  does, 
even  on  the  Conceffion  of  a  Jew,  the  Prophet  Habakkuk;  who  exprefsly 
owns  it  to  be  by  Faith.  But  the  Law,  fays  the  Apoftle,  attributes  nothing 
to  Faith ;  but,  to  Deeds  only,  "  which  if  a  Man  do  he  fhall  live  in  them." 
Now,  if,  by  Life,  be  here  meant,  as  the  Objedtor  fuppofes,  eternal  Life, 
then  St.  Paul's  Argument  does  not  come  out  as  he  intended  it ;  namely, 
that  Faith  and  not  the  Works  of  the  Law  juflify;  but  thus,  that  both  Faith 
and  the  Works  of  the  Law  juftify,  which  would  have  fatisfied  thcfe  judai- 
zers,  (as  reconciling,  on  their  own  Prejudices,  M-jfes  and  Hubakkuk)  ;  but, 
by  no  means,  our  Apoftle;  whofe  Conc/«/?o/2  on  this  Queftion  (where  dif- 
cuffed  at  large,  in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Romatis)  is,  t7jat  a  Man  is  juflified  by 
Faith  WITHOUT  the  Deeds  of  the  Law  §.  The  very  Drift  of  his  Argument 
therefore  fhews  us,  that  he  muft  necetFarily  underftand  the  Lfe,  promifed 
in  this  Text  of  Leviticus,    to  be  temporal  Life  only.    But  charitably 

*  Gal.  iii.  1 1,   12.  t   ii.  4.  J   xviii.   5. 

§  Gal.  iii.  38, 


^66  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL      Postscript. 

(ludioiis,  as  it  were,  to  prevent  all  poflible  Chance  of  our  miftaking  hina 
on  lb  important  a  Point,  he  immediately  fubjoins,  Chrift  hath  redeemed  us 
from  the  Curfe  of  the  Law  *.  Now  we  know  that  our  Redemption  by  Chrift 
was  from  that  Death  which  the  firit  Man  brought  into  the  World  :  This 
was  the  Curfe  he  entailed  upon  his  Poftcrity.  The  Apoftle's  transferring 
this  Term  from  Adatn  to  the  Law  fhews,  therefore,  that,  in  his  Sentiments, 
the  Law  had  no  more  a  Share  in  the  Redemption  of  fallen  Man  than  Adam 
himfclf  had.  Yet  it  is  certain,  that  if  the  Law,  when  it  faid,  He  who 
keeps  ihefc  Statutes  and  Judgments  jhall  live  in  them,  meant /or  ever,  it  pro- 
pofed  the  Redemption  of  Mankind  as  certainly  as  the  bleffed  Jefus  him- 
felf  did,  when  he  faid,  he  that  belicveth  in  me  fhall  have  everlajling  Life. 
This  becomes  demonftrably  clear  if  St.  Paul's  Reafoning  will  hold,  who 
furely  had  heard  nothing  of  this  Prerogative  of  the  Law,  when  he  faid.  If 
there  had  been  a  Law  given  which  could  have  given  Life,  verily  righteouf- 
nefs  fliould  have  been  by  the  Law.  Where  obferve,  I  pray  you,  the 
Force  of  the  Word  ^oooTror^a-ai,  which  fignifies  to  quicken,  or  to  7nake  alive  ; 
plainly  intimating,  the  fame  he  had  faid  in  the  Place  before  quoted,  that 
thofe  in  Subjcflion  to  the  Law  were  under  a  Curfe,  or  in  the  State  of 
Death. — Let  me  add  only  this  further  Obfervation,  that  if  (as  the  Ob- 
jeftor  pretends)  by  Lfe,  in  the  Text  of  Levit.  be  meant  eternal  Life  ;  and 
if  (as  the  Apoille  pretends)  by  Life  in  the  Text  of  Habakkuk  be  meant  eter- 
nal Lfe :  then  will  Mofes  and  Habakkuk  be  made  diredtly  to  contradidt 
one  another ;  the  Firfl  giving  eternal  Lfe  to  Works  ;  the  Latter,  to  Faith. 

But  the  Objeftor  would  infinuate,  that  Jefus  himfelf  feems  to  have 
fixed  this  Senfe  to  the  Text  in  Leviticus ;  at  leaft  that  he  has  plainly  in- 
ferred, that  eternal  Life  was  taught,  if  not  obtained,  by  the  Law. — 
"  When  the  Lawyer  in  the  Gofpel  (fays  he)  had  made  that  mofl:  impor- 
"  tant  Demand,  Majler,  what  fhall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  Life -f  ?  our  bleffed 
"  Lord  refers  him  to  what  was  written  in  the  Law,  and  upon  his  making  a 
"  found  and  judicious  Anfwer,  approves  of  it;  and  for  Satlsfaftion  to  his 
"  Queflion,  tells  him,  This  do  and  thou  jhalt  live." — Would  not  any  one 
now  conclude  from  the  Senfe  here  put  upon  the  Words  of  Jefus,  that 
the  found  and  judicious  Anfwer  of  the  Lawyer  muft  have  been  a  Quotation 
of  the  Text  in  Leviticus,  or  at  leaft  fome  general  Promife  made  to  the  Ob- 
fcrvers  of  the  ichole  Law  of  Mofs  ?  Nothing  like  it.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Lawyer's  Anfwer  was  a  Quotation  of  only   one  Precept  of  the  Law, 

*  iii.  13.  f  Luke  x.  55. 

Thou 


Postscript.    OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.     2>^^j 

Thoujhalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  with  all  thy  Heart,  &c.  and  thy  Neighbour 
as  thy  j'iif.  Now  how  much  focver  we  may  differ  about  a  future  Life's 
being  held  out  by  the  Laxv  through  a  Meffiah  that  was  to  come,  I  fuppofe 
we  are  both  agreed  that  Ta'ith  in  the  Mejfuih,  either  aftual  or  imputcc', 
is  neceffary  to  obtain  this  future  Life.  There  are  but  two  ways  then  of 
underftanding  this  Text  of  St.  Luke,  neither  of  which  is  to  his  Purpofc. 
The  firfl  is  fuppofing  Jefus  included  Faith  in  himfelf  in  this  Precept  of 
Icving  God  with  all  the  Heart,  &c.  which  will  appear  no  forced  Interpreta- 
tion to  him  who  holds  Jefus  to  be  really  and  truly  God ;  as  I  fuppofe  we 
both  do ;  and  may  be  fupported  by  a  Circumftance  in  the  Story,  as  told 
by  St.  Matthezu  *,  though  omitted  by  St.  Luke,  which  is  Jcfus's  faying, 
that  on  thefe  two  Commandments  hang  all  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  The 
fecond  and  exadter  Interpretation  is,  that  Jefus  fpoke  to  a  profeffing  Fol- 
lower, who  pretended  to  acknowledge  his  Miffion,  and  wanted  only  a 
Rule  of  Life.  For  Jefus  is  here  preaching  the  Gofpel  to  his  Dijciples, 
and  a  Lawyer  Jiood  up  and  tempted  him,  that  is,  on  the  falfe  footing  of  a 
Difciple  required  a  Rule  of  Life.  Now  in  either  Cafe,  this  Reference  of 
Jefus  to  the  Law  muft  imply  this,  and  this  only,  that  without  Righteoufnrfs 
and  Holinefs  no  Man  fhall  fee  the  Lord,  A  Point  in  which,  I  fuppofe,  we  are 
agreed. — But  ftill  the  Objedtor  will  fay  that  thefe  Words  of  Jefus  allude 
to  the  Words  of  Mofes.  Admit  they  do.  It  will  not  follow,  as  he  fecms 
to  think,  that  they  were  given  to  explain  them.  How  many  Allufions 
are  there  in  the  New  Tejlament  to  Paffages  in  the  Old,  accommodated  to  a 
fpiritual  Senfe,  where  the  Texts  alluded  to  are  feen,  by  all  but  Fanatics, 
to  have  only  a  carnal?  And  even  in  this  very  Allufion,  if  it  be  one, 
we  find  that  the  Promife  made  to  the  Obfervers  of  the  whole  Law  is  tranf- 
ferred  to  the  Obfervance  of  one  fingle  Precept  in  the  moral  Part  of  it. 
But  let  us  grant  him  all  he  would  have  ;  and  admit  that  thefe  Words  of 
Jefus  were  given  to  explain  the  Words  of  'Mofes.  What  would  follow 
from  thence,  but  that  the  Promife  in  Leviticus  v/^as prophetical,  antl  had  a 
fecondary  Senfe,  of  a  fpiritual  and  fublimer  Import  ?  Will  this  give  any 
Advantage  to  our  Adverfaries  ?  furely  none  at  all.  And  yet  the  Abufe  of 
this  Conceffion  is  all  they  have  for  it,  to  fupport  their  "^yftcms.  Thus 
the  Reader  has  feen  how  the  Examiner  of  the  fecond  Propoftion  triumjihs 
on  my  Aflertion,  that  the  later  Jews  excogitated  the  Dodrine  of  the  Re  fur- 

*  Matt.  xxii.  40. 

retlian 


36S       REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL    Postscript. 

n^ion  from  the  propl:etic  Langucii^e  of  former  Ages;  and  aiks  (with  an 
Ignorance  excufablc  only  in  a  Savage  to  his  Catechift)  how  tbefe  Jezvt 
came  to  be  more  quick-fighced  than  //jo/f  contemporary  with  the  Prophets? 
J  had  in  vain  entlcavoured  to  teach  him  that  a  Carnal  and  a  Spiritual 
Scnlc  (both  of  which,  wc  are  agreed,  the  Law  had,  in  order  to  fit  Cod's 
Word  to  the  ufe  of  two  Difpenfations)  implied  an  Ignorance  of  the  Spiritual 
Senlc  during  the  Jirjl  of  them.  But  my  Word  ought  to  go  for  nothing, 
in  this  Cafe,  when  unfupported  by  Scripture.  Let  us  hear  then  what  the 
Apoftlcs  themfelves  fay  to  this  matter  :  Who,  in  order  to  Ihew  the  fupc- 
rior  Excellence  of  the  Gufpel,  in  their  Reafoning  againft  Jews  and  judaiz- 
ino-  Chriftians,  fet  the  Law  in  Contraft  to  it,  under  the  Titles  of  The  Lazo 
(if  a  carnal  Commandment ;  The  Minijiration  of  Death  ;  The  Law  of  Works  : 
and  call  Subjeftion  to  it,  Subjedion  to  the  Flefh.  Yet  thefe  very  Writers  at 
the  fame  time  own  that  the  Law  was  spiritual,  or  had  a  fpiriiual  Senfe. 
But  if  by  this  they  meant,  that  that  Senfe  was  generally  underftood  dur- 
ing- the  Law  Difpenfation,  their  whole  Argument  had  ended  in  the  higheft 
Futility.  For  then  it  was  not  a  Law  of  a  carnal  Commandment,  a  Minijira- 
tion of  Death ;  but,  indeed  a  Law  of  the  Spirit,  a  Minijiration  of  Life ; 
only  under  a  dead  and  carnal  Cover ;  which,  being  clearly  feen  through, 
was  no  other  than  a  Foil  to  fet  it  the  better  off:  and  confequently  was  of 
equal  Dignity,  and,  though  not  of  equal  Simplicity,  yet,  indeed,  eflcn- 
tially  the  fame  with  the  GofpeL  Thus  we  fee  into  how  high  a  Degree  of 
Contempt  with  Unbelievers,  thefe  Principles  of  my  Adverfaries  would  na- 
turally bring  the  holy  Apoftles,  did  not  thofe  admirable  Reafoners  take 
care  themfelves  to  guard  againfl  fo  horrid  a  Perverfion  of  their  Meaning. 
They  owned,  we  fee,  that  the  Law  h3.d  a  fpiriiual  Senfe:  But  when,  and 
by  whom  difcovered,  the  Apoftle  faul  informs  us,  by  calling  that  Senfe 
the  Newness  of  Spirit  *;  which  he  oppofes  to  the  Oldnefs  of  the  Letter, 
that  is,  the  Letter  of  the  Law.  In  the  former  Part  of  the  Verfe,  he  fpeaks 
of  the  Law  being  dead;  and,  here,  of  its  being  revived  again  with  a  new 
Spirit,  in  Contradiftindion  to  the  Oldnefs  nf  the  Letter.  So  true  was  it,  what, 
in  another  Place,  he  obferves,  that  the  Law  was  a  Shadow  of  Things  to 
come;  but  the  Body  was  ofChrlfif.  The  Shadow  not  of  a  Bodji  then  to 
be  fecn  or  underftood,  as  our  Adverfaries  imagine,  but  of  a  Body  that 
was  to  comcy  and,  by  its  Prefence,  explain  the  Meaning  and  Reafon  of 

*  Rom.  vii.  6.  j-   Col.  ii,   17, 

the 


Postscript.   OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.      369 

the  Shadow.  For  the  7<?odj  being,  as  the  Apoftlcfays,  hi  BGnda''e  under  tb: 
Elements  of  the  World*,  were  as  Men  (hut  up  in  Prifon,  with  their  Faces 
kept  turned  from  the  Light,  towards  the  whited  Wall  of  Ceremonies :  on 
which  indeed  they  faw  many  Shadows;  but  the  Body  or  oppof.tc  Subftance 
at  their  Backs,  to  which  they  could  not  turn,  they  faw  not.  And  in 
this  State,  fays  the  fame  Apoftle,  they  were  kept  Jlmt  up  unto  the  Faith, 
which  Jhould  afterwards  be  revealed -f.  Till  that  time  therefore,  it  appears 
that  the  Body  of  the  Jews  had  no  Knowledge  of  this  Faith ;  one  of  the 
eflential  Articles  of  which  is  Life  everlajling.  This  we  muft  needs  have 
concluded,  even  though  he  had  not  faid  that  till  that  tiine  they  were  in  Pon- 
dage under  the  Elements  of  the  IVorld.  A  proper  Charadcr  truly  of  a  Pco- 
pie  acquainted  with  the  revealed  Dodtrine  of  Life  and  Immortality  ! 

But,  as  the  Ep'ijUe  to  the  Hebrews  is  fo  much  infifled  on  by  my  Adverfa- 
ries,  I  fliall,  in  the  laft  Place,  produce  a. Text  or  two  from  it,  fufficient 
alone  to  determine  the  Controvcrfy  between  us ;  and  to  juftify  what  I  faid 
of  it  in  the  Divine  Legation,  that  in  this  Epijlle  there  are  more  exprefs  De- 
clarations that  Lfe  and  Immortaliiy  was  not  taught  by  nor  known  und  r  the 
Law,  than  in  all  the  other  Books  of  the  New  Tejiament.  For  which  indeed 
a  very  good  Reafon  may  be  given ;  as  it  was  addreffed  folely  to  the  Jews ; 
amongft  whom  this  fatal  Prejudice,  that  a  future  State  was  taught  by 
the  LaiVf  was  then,  and  has  continued  ever  fince,  to  be  the  ftrongcft  Im- 
pediment to  their  Converfion.  But  to  come  to  the  Point.  The  infpircd 
Writer,  in  the  fecond  Chapter  and  fecond  Verfe,  hath  thcfe  remarkable 
Words,  For  if  the  Word  fpoken  by  Angels  was  fie df aft,  and  every  Tranfgrcjpon 
and  Difobedience  received  ajiijl  Rccompence  of  Reward;  bow  fkall  we  efcate^ 
&c.  By  the  Word  fpoken  by  Angels  every  one  knows  is  meant  the  Law  deli- 
vered to  Mofes  by  them  for  his  People :  So  that  here  is  an  exprefs  Decla- 
ration, I.  That  the  San£lions  of  this  Law  were  of  a  temporal  kind.  He  then 
goes  on,  Verfe  the  fifth.  For  unto  the  Angels  hath  he  not  put  in  Subjeclion  the 
World  to  come,  zvhercof  we  fpeak.  And  this  is  as  exprefs  a  Declaration, 
2.  That  the  Law  taught  no  future  State.  Thus  far  then  we  are  got.  Let 
us  next  attend  to  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  Verfes  ;  he  [ChriftJ  alfo  him- 
felf  likewfe  took  Part  of  the  fame  [Flcfh  and  BloodJ  that,  through  Death, 
he  might  dejiroy  him  that  had  the  Power  of  Death,  that  is,  the  Dcv'd ;  and 
deliver  them  who,  through  Fear  of  Death,  were  all  ihdr  Life-time  fubjed  to 

*  Gal.  iv.  J.  f  Gal.  iii.  23. 

▼oL.  VL  B  b  b  Bondage. 


5;o  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL       Postscript. 

Bondage.  The  Dnills  here  faici  to  have  the  Power  of  Death,  as  he  brought 
it  in  by  the  Deliifion  ofthe/;y?  Man;  therefore,  before  Death  can  be  abo- 
liflied,  he  muft  be  dcftroyed.  But  his  Dcftrudtion  is  the  Work  of  the/^- 
(ond  Man.  Till  then,  wc  infer  from  hence,  that  Death  reigned  under  the 
Devil.  But  this  is  not  all ;  we  arc  exprefsly  told,  that  the  Jcvs,  all  their 
Life-lime,  were  through  Fear  of  Death  fuhje^  to  Bondage.  Which  certainly 
can  imply  no  other  than,  3.  That  they  had  no  future  State  to  (ecure  them 
from  this  Fear.  Sec  here  then,  for  a  Concliifion,  the  Principle  of  the 
Divine  Legation  juftified  on  the  plained  and  moft  confcquential  Reafoning 
of  the  holy  Apoftle. 

But  now,  fay  thefe  Men,  if  the  early  Jews  had  no  Knowledge  of  a 
Future  State,  the  chofen  People  of  God  were  in  a  much  worfe  Condition 
than  the  Gentiles  who  all  had  it. — To  this  Purpofe  let  us  hear  our  anony- 
mous Examiner,  who  has  not  or^ly  fpoken  the  full  Senfe  of  his  Party,  but 
has  urged  it  too  with  a  Candour  peculiar  to  hinifclf. 

"  You  confider  (fays  he)  the  Ignorance  of  the  Jeivs  as  to  the  Dodrine 
"  of  a  future  State,  as  one  of  the  moft  momentous  Truths  that  Religion  has 
**  to  boaft  of.  I,  on  the  other  hand,  look  upon  it  as  a  Disgrace  to 
"  Revelation;  as,  by  the  very  A&i  of  God  himfelf,  it  fliuts  out  his  own 
•'  chofen  People,  for  many  Ages,  from  that  fingle  Point  of  Knowledge, 
"  which  could  be  the  Foundation  of  a  realbnable  Worfhip  ;  while  by  the 
«'  Dire(f\ions  of  his  Providence,  all  the  World  befides  were  permitted  to 
«'  have  the  Benefit  of  it  «." 

He  fays,  He  looks  upon  no  future  State  amongft  the  Jews  as  a  Difgrace  to 
Reveluiion.  Why  fo  ?  Becaufe  by  the  very  ASl  of  God  himfelf  it  fhut  out 
his  own  chofen  People,  &c.  Sure  he  has  forgot  what  he  fo  oft  told  his  Rea- 
der, that  Mofes  taught  not,  nor  had  it  in  his  Commffion  to  teach,  a  future 
State  to  the  Ifraelites  :  Otherwife  he  would  have  feen  that  this,  alone,  went 
a  great  way  towards  /hutting  out  the  chofen  People.  And  if  they  were  let  in 
at  all,  it  certainly  was  not  by  this  Prophet  of  God.  Confequently,  if 
the  holding,  \\\z.x.  Cod  fhut  them  out,  ht  difgraeeful  toKtvtXzlion,  this  very 
orthodox  Gintleman,  we  fee,  is  got  as  deep  in  the  Mire  as  the  Author  of 
the  Divine  Legation.  In  truth,  I  pity  the  poor  Man,  who  thus,  at  every 
Step,  brings  himfelf  into  thefe  Diftrefles  :  And  all,  from  a  falfe  Modcfly. 
lie  v\as  alhanicd  of  the  Abfurdity  of  his    Party,   in  holding   that  Mofts 

*  Page  131,   i3i. 

iaught^ 


Postscript.   O  C  C  A  S  I  ON  AL  R  EFL  E  CTI  O  NS.     371 

taught,  or  cught  to  have  taught,  a  future  State;  and  therefore,  at  this  turn, 
leaves  them  in  the  lurch,  and  takes  up  the  better  Principle  of  his  Adver- 
fary,  that  Mofis  had  no  CommiJJion  to  teach  it  :  For  he  mud  have  been  dull 
indeed  not  to  have  collccfted  that  this  was  his  Adverfary's  Principle,  after 
he  had  focn  him  write  a  Book  to  prove  that  McfcS  did  not  teach  it. — And  be 
not  offended,  good  Sir,  that  I  call  this  a  falfe  Modefiy ;  for  what  is  it  clfe, 
to  be  fhocked  with  one  Abfurdity  in  your  Party,  and  yet  to  defend  all  the 
rcjl?  Whofe  only  plaufible  Support,  too,  happens  to  be  in  that  one  which 
you  rcjcd:.     Indeed,  indeed,  my  kind  Friend, 

Pudor  te  mains  urgct, 

Infanos  qui  inter  vereare  in/anus  haberi. 

— But  the  Caufe,  though  not  the  Advocate,  demands  a  fcrious  Confutation. 
And  as  the  only  Support  of  it,  againft  the  Argument  of  The  Divine  Lega- 
tion, lies  in  thefe  calumnious  Appeals  to  vulgar  Prejudices;  which  our 
Anonymous,  in  the  Paflage  above,  has  inforced  with  his  hearticfl  Malice  ;  I 
will  here,  once  for  all,  examine  their  Pretenfions :  and  fo  as  they  fliall 
never  henceforward  be  confidered,  in  the  learned  World  at  leaft,  as  any 
other  than  mere  vulgar  Prejudices. 

To  begin  then  with  the  SuhjeSl  of  theyf/y?  Propofuion,  That  Gsdjlmt 
ml  the  Ifraelites /ro^w  the  Knowledge  of  a  future  State;  which  (in  the  Cafe 
given)  is  throwing  that  upon  Gcd  for  which  Man  only  is  accountable.  The 
Jjraeliles  were  indeed /hut  out  i  yet,  not  as  he  dreams,  by  the  very  Ad  of  God 
himfdf;  but,  if  he  will  have  the  Truth  who  never  feeks  it  as  he  ought, 
by  the  very  Aft  of  their  Forefather,  Adam.  It  was  the  JirJI  Man  who  Jhut 
them  out :  And  the  Door  of  Paradife  was  never  opened  again  till  the 
coming  of  the  feeond  Man,  the  Lord  from  Heaven,  But  this,  I  own,  is  an- 
fwering  him  in  a  ftrange  Language  ;  the  Language  of  Scripture.  A  Lan- 
guage his  Syftems  will  never  enable  him  to  undcrftanJ. — But  more  of  this 
Secret,  for  fuch,  I  find,  it  is  to  om  Examiner,  in  my  next  Volume. 

But,  to  fhew  what  infinite  Lofs  they  fullained  in  this  Exclufion,  he  goes 
on,  and  fays,  that  a  future  Stale  is  thefmgle  Point  of  Knowledge  which  can 
he  the  Foundation  of  a  reafonable  Worfhip.  Here,  Doiftors  differ.  St.  Paul 
Tp\2ices  the  Foundation  of  a  reef onable  Worfiip  in  another  Thing.     He  faith, 

that  HE  THAT  COMETH  TO  GcD    MUST    BELIEVE    THAT  HE    IS,    AND    THAT 

HE  IS    A  REWARDER  OF  THEM  THAT  DILIGENTLY  SEEK    HIM  *.        What  is 

*  Hcb.  xi.  6. 

Bbb  2  Man's 


37a  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL     Postscript. 

Man's  Purpofc  in  coming  to  God?  Why,  certainly,  to  worfiip  him.  And 
what  doth  the  Apottlc  tell  us  is  the  true,  the  reafonable  Foundation  of  this 
Worjlr.p  ?  Why,  to  believe  that  be  is,  and  that  be  is  a  Rewarder  of  them 
tbjt  fak  him.  What  bee  mes  then  of  our  Examiner's  only  Foundation  of  a 
Tcafonahle  IVorfjip  ?  The  i\j)onie,  we  fee,  places  it  in  the  Nature,  and  not 
(as  our  Examiner)  inihc  imijfenlial  Qrcumjiances,  ol  Reward:  Confequent- 
ly  a  Reward  given  here,  was  as  true  a  Foundation  of  reafonable  Worjhip  to 
the  early  ^ews,  living  under  an  extraordinary  Providence,  as  a  Reward 
given  hereafter  is  to  us  ChrilHans,  living  under  an  ordinary  one  :  And 
confequently  our  Examiner  muft  have  been  miftaken,  when  he  made  a 
Future  State  the  fingle  Point  of  Knowledge  which  can  be  the  Foundation  of 
a  reafcnahk  IForfhip. — But  does  not  common  Senfe  fay  the  fame  ihing  ? 

For  to  come  a  little  clofer  to  this  formidable  Man,  now  I  have  got  an 
Apoftlc  on  my  Side ;  I  will  undertake  to  demonjirate  (how  much  foever  he 
diilikes  the  Word)  that  a  Future  State  is  fo  far  from  being  the  onfy 
Foundation  of  a  reafonable  Worjhip,  that,  \\\{\\t  God  is  believed  the  Rewarder 
cf  them  that  diligently  fek  him  (and  that  is  the  Cafe  of  a  People  under  an 
extraordinary  Providence)  the  Ignorance  of  a  Future  State  neither  affcdts 
Piety  nor  Morality  ;  the  two  things  which  conflitute  a  reafonable  Worfhip,  and 
perfeift  Mankind  in  Virtue. 

Not  Piety,  becaufe  that  (in  the  Cafe  given)  depends  folely  on  the  Belief 
that  God  is. 

Not  Morality,  becaufe  that  depends  folely  on  the  Knowledge  of  what  Gcd 
commands. 

And  this,  which  right  Reafon  teaches,  X.\^t  L.iw  of  Mofes  has  promulged. 
We  are  commanded  to  love  God  for  his  Sake,  that  is,  for  the  Excellence 
of  his  Nature,  the  moft  lovely  of  all  Objefts.  We  are  commanded  to  love 
cur  Neighbour ;  and  the  prefcribed  Meafure,  as  our  felves,  points  to  the 
Equity  of  the  Command;  for,  being  all  equal  by  Nature,  we  fliould  have 
but  one  Rule  of  adling,  for  ourfelves  and  others.  This  is  refolvable  into 
the  natural  Relations  of  things ;  and  thofe  Relations  are  the  Derhrations  of 
God's  Will,  the  only  true  Foundation  of  Morality  ;  and,  as  fuch,  perpe- 
tually inforced  by  the  Lazv  of  Mcfes.  Thus  firmly  eftablilhed  are  the 
Duties  of  the  firft  and  fecond  Table.  Now,  on  ibe  Love  of  God  and  of  our 
Neighlour  bang  all  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  That  thefe  therefore  fhould 
not  be  ab'e  at  the  fame  time  to  fupport  a  Reafonable  Worjhip,  when,  to  ail- 
this  Mofaic  Enforcement  of  the  Belief  that  God  is,  it  is  added,  that  he  is  an 

exaft 


Postscript.     OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  373 

cxaift  Re-warder  of  them  that  diligently  fiek  him,  would  be  a  very  hard  Cafe 
indeed;  efpecially  if  we  confider,  that,  to  our  corrupt  Nature,  it  is  not 
the  imiiieafurable  Reward  at  Dirtance,  but  that  which  is  prefcnt,  and  un- 
derftood  by  us,  that  moft  forcibly  attrads  us.  And  this  it  was,  which  the 
Law  of  Mofes  held  our. 

In  a  Word  then,  fince  pure  Virtue,  under  which  Term  I  comprife  Piety 
and  Morality,  confids  in  adting  agreeably  to  thofe  Relations  in  which  we 
fland  to  alt  Beings  vvhatfoever ;  is  it  poffible  there  can  be  any  more  forcible 
Inducement  to  our  reafonable  Nature  for  the  Praftice  of  it,  than  that  which 
is  propofed  by  the  Law  of  Mofes,  namely,  that  God  commands  it  out  of 
our  Love  and  Fear  and  Duty  towards  him  ?  Or  any  more  forcible  Induce- 
ment to  our  corrupt  Nature,  than  that  every  Work  (hall  receive  its  full 
Recompence  of  Reward,  through  the  Adminiftration  of  an  extraordinary 
Providence  ?■  How  then  is  it  poffible  that  a  bng,  or  fbort  Duration,  the 
Rewards  of  this,  or  of  ancther  Life,  Ihould  in  the  lead  ejjentially  affedt  the- 
Purity,  or  Integrity  of  human  Virtue,  fo  taught  and  recommended;  that 
is,  a  reafonable  WorJJiip,  in  the  Spirit  of  Piety,  and  Truth  of  Morality  ? 

To  fuppofe  that  Virtue  cannot  be  pure  and  perfect  but  when  forced  upon 
Men  by  the  Iramenfity  of  Punifliment,  is  having  no  better  an  Idea  of  it 
than  the  Pagan  Slave  in  the  Poet, 

Sum  bonus  ac  frugi :  renuit  negitaique  Sabcllus, 

Indeed,  in  the  ordinary  Diflribution  of  Things,  where  the  Rewards  and 
Puniihments  of  Religion  lie  at  diftance,  I  believe  nothing  lefs  than  the 
Promifes  and  Terrors  of  the  Chrijiian  would  be,  generally,  fufEcient  to. 
fupport  the  Pradice  it  enjoins.  But  here  too,  it  is  ftill  the  Love  and  Fear 
of  (^od,  not  of  Reward  and  Piinifhment,  that  are  held  out  to  us,  to  perfedt 
and  fublime  our  Virtue;  though  the  others  likcwife  be  laid  before  us  to 
raife  and  quicken  it. 

But  here,  let  nie  not  be  again  mifunderftood,  as  I  have  been  once 
already,  by  this  fuper-fubtile  Examiner.  I  deny  indeed  that  the  Want  of 
a  future  State  in  the  Je-aijh  Religion,  under  an  extraordinary  Providence,^ 
could  at  all  afll'(ft  the  Truth  and  Purity  of  human  Virtue,  as  there  founded 
and  enforced  :  Yet,  at  the  fame  tinie,  I  am  very  far  from  denying  but 
that  other  Things  did  hinder  that  Religion  from  being  perfcifi.  Nay,  in. 
my  Addrefs  to  the  few.-*,  prefixed   to  the  fecond  \'olun2e  of  The  Divine 

*  Ded.  to  the  Jews,  p.  xxii, — In  the  prcfent  Edition,  fee  vol, II.  p.  276. 

Legation^ 


-74       "REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL      Postscript. 

Lfgatiaa^  I  have  fliewn  what  thefc  Things  were  :  As,  firft,  the  whole  lurn 
of  ihe'ir  Ritual  lau;:  And,  fecondly,  the  Want  of  a  future  State  under  the 
crdimiry  and  common  Providence  of  Mankind'^.  For  I  am  there  applying, 
to  thelc  miftakcQ  People,  a  View  of  Mofis's  Religion  as  it  appears  under 
their  prefent  Condition,  in  order  to  convince  them  of  the  Neceffity  of  hav- 
ing us  Impcrfeiftion  fupplicd  by  the  Religion  of  Jefus  ;  in  which,  I  fup- 
pofc,  all  Chriftians  are  agreed.  At  lead,  as  many  as  are  out  of  the 
thick  Darkncfs  of  Controverfy  will  fee  thefe  to  be  very  different  and  dif- 
tind  rofuions.  The  one  faying,  that  their  Virtue  might  be  pure  and  per- 
feCl:,  during  the  Times  of  an  extraordinary  Providence,  for  any  thing  that 
the  jo-norance  of  a  future  State  could  affecft  to  the  contrary.  1  he  other, 
that  a  Religion  without  a  future  State,  on  the  Suppofition  of  its  being  to 
ferve/or  all  Times,  mufl  be  very  imperfedf. 

I  mio'ht  now  expedt,  after  fo  full  a  Confutation  of  this  erroneous  Opi- 
nion, concerning  the  Foundation  of  a  reafonable  WorfJyip,  that  our  Examiner 
fliould  bltifh  for  his  Raflinefs  in  afferting,  that  the  Ignorance  of  the  Jews  con- 
cerning a  future  State  is  a  Disgrace  to  Revelation.  An  Expreffion,  which, 
were  there  but  a  Chance  of  his  being  wrong,  a  fober  Divine  would  care- 
fully have  avoided ;  as  altogether  unfuitable  to  that  Pvcverence  we  owe  to 
God,  while  meafuring  his  tremendous  Providence  by  our  fcanty  and  un- 
certain Ideas  of  ft  and  rigiJt.  I  might  fay,  indeed,  that  the  Jews'  Igno- 
rance of  a  future  State  was  a  Truth  of  yo  hi^h  Importance,  that,  from  thence, 
could  be  dcmonftrated  the  Divinity  of  their  Difpenfation;  and,  I  prefume, 
without  Offence  to  any  fober  Man  ;  becaufe,  if  I  were  miflaken,  no  Injury 
was  done  to  Revelation  ;  I  left  it  whole  and  entire,  juft  as  I  took  it  up. 
But  fhould  the  Examiner  be  miflaken,  his  calling  this  Ignorance  a  Dis- 
grace TO  Revelatiojj  would  be  affording  fuch  an  Handle  to  the  Enemies 
of  Religion  to  blafpheme,  as  he  fhould  tremble  to  think  of. 

But,  if  I  know  him  well,  he  is  not  a  Writer  of  RetraSatiens.  He  has 
another  Reafon  for  calling  it  a  Difgrace  to  Revelation.  For,  It  fhuts  up  (he 
fays)  God's  ozvn  chofn  Feople  from  a  future  State,  while  by  the  Dire£lions  of 
his  Providence  oil  the  World  befides  were  permitted  to  have  the  Benefit  of  it. 
And  now,  good  People,  you  have  it  all  :  And  if  this  will  not  move  you, 

why The  Author  of  The  Divine  Legation,  for  any  thing  I   fee,  may 

go  on. 

This  fcoiid  Propofuion  we  fee  is,  that  (in  the  Cafe  given)  "  all  the 
"  Pagan  World  were  by  the  divine  Providenca/'^r;«/V/^</  to  enjoy  a  Benefit 
*  Page  xxiii,   (Vol,  II.  p.  276.) 

*'  which 


Postscript.    O  C  C  A  S  I  O  N  A  L  R  E  F  LE  C  T  I  O  X  S.  575 

"  which  was  denied  to  the  Jews."  Examining  ihc  Predicate  of  this  I'ro- 
pofition,  we  fliall  firit  confider  the  Pekmission,  and  then  the  Bene- 
fit. 

AH  the  PVcrld  kef.dcs,  fays  he,  ive  c  pcrrrdtted. By  what  Infirumcnt  ? 

By  the  Ufe  of  their  Reafon. — And  had  not  the  Jews  the  Ufe  of  theirs  ? 
Not  \.\\Qfree  Ufe  :  For  their  Prophet  delivering  to  them,  from  God,  a  new 
Law  and  Religion,  in  which  the  Doctrine  of  a  future  State  was  not  found, 
this  would  naturally  lead  them  to  conclude  againft  it. — What,  in  Defiance 
of  all  the  Deduftions  of  Keafon,  which,  from  God's  dcmonftrable  Attri- 
butes of  Goodnefs  and  Juftice,  made  the  Pagan  World  conclude,  that,  as 
moral  Good  and  Evil  had  not  their  Retribution  here,  they  would  have  it 
hereafter  ?  Yes  indeed,  fo  we  find  it  was. — Strange  !  that  this  Mofcs  ihould 
have  fuch  an  Influence  over  a  I'eople's  Undertlanding  !  Why,  if  you  will 
have  it,  he  promifed  that  Good  and  Evil  Ihould  have  their  Retribution 
here. — Ay,  now  the  Secret  is  out.  Well,  indeed,  might  x.h.\%Jhut  them  «/> 
from  looking  further;  efpccially  if  (as  you  pretend  to  believe)  he  not  only 
promifed,  but  performed,  likewife.  See  then  to  what  this  Permission 
amounts,  fo  invidioufly  urged,  not  againft  me,  for  that  is  nothing,  but 
againft  the  Scriptures  of  God.  Juft  ro  thus  much,  "  That  all  the  JVorld 
"  befides  were  permitted  to  find  out,  by  Reafon,  what  his  own  chofcn  Peo- 
"  pie  were  taught,  by  the  pradlical  Demonflration  of  an  extraordinary  Pro- 
"  liderce;  namely,  that  God  would  ad:  with  Juilicc  and  Goodnefs  towards 
"  Man." 

Come  we  now  to  the  Beneft.  The  Benefit  of  the  Dodtrine  of  2.  future 
State  is  twofold.  To  Sicicty  as  fueh,  as  it  is  a  Curb  to  Vice  by  fupporting 
the  Belief  of  a  Providence,  under  the  unequal  Diftribution  of  Things: 
And  to  Religion  as  fuch,  as  it  is  an  Incentive  to  Virtue,  by  fhewing  the  Rate 
fet  upon  it.  The  Dodrine  of  a  future  State,  in  the  Pagan  World,  af- 
forded indeed  that  Benefit  to  Society  :  But  then,  that  Benefit  the  Jewifh  State 
did  not  want,  as  being  under  an  equal  Diftribution  of  Things.  Benefit  to 
Religion,  their  DoSirine  of  a  future  State  afforded  none.  It  was  over-run 
with  Superftitions ;  and  generally  gave  the  Rewards  of  another  Life,  not  to 
moral  but  to  ritual  Obiervances.  And  when  not  fo,  as  in  the  open  teach- 
ing of  the  Myfteries,  yet  even  there  the  fevereft  Puniflimcnts  in  the  Pagan 
Hell  were  allotted  to  the  Aihcifis,  or  the  Rejcdtors  of  the  vulgar  Politkcfn  » 
which,  not  only  utterly  depraved  Ucligion,  but  riveted  Men  in  its  Dc,'ra- 
vity.     So  that,  in  the  Scnle  of  our  Examiner  (who  is  here  fpeakii-jg  of  the 

BcneiiL 


,;6  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL       Postscript. 

Bcncfir  of  a  future  State  to  RcHgion,  as  fuch),  t\\\%  future  State  of  all  the 
mrld  iefid.'s  was  indeed  no  Benefit  at  all.  But  he  will  fay,  I  have  fliewn, 
tliat  the  aix^ff^a.  of  the  Mvftcries  removed  thefe  Errors.  It  is  true,  I  have. 
But,  at  the  fame  time,  likewife,  that  thefc  were  revealed  to  very  few. 
And,  to  let  Matters  even,  has  not  he  fliewn  from  Bifhop  Bull  *,  that  the 
bidden  Myjleries  of  the  Lazv  were  opened  to  fit  Hearers,  wherever  they  were 
found?  though,  ixom  t)xc  total  Silence  of  a  future  State,  in  the  old  Jezvijh 
Hiftory,  I  fufpcdt,  thefe  vjctq  ftill  fewer.  Which  Opinion  I  will  be  ready 
to  retrad:,  when  he  ftiall  fhew  me,  in  the  Jewifh  Antiquities,  as  plain  Intt- 
jnations  of  jl  future  State,  amongft  the  hidden  Myfteries  of  the  Law,  as  I  have 
fheA'n  him  in  the  Grecian,  of  the  Dodrine  of  the  Unity,  and  the  Dete£iion 
of  vulgar  Polytheifm  amongfl:  the  Myfieries  of  Paganifm.  But  had  a  future 
State  aflbrded  the  Pagans  never  fo  much  Benefit  to  Religion  as  fuch :  Yet 
neither  this  did  the  jewifh  People  want,  and  for  the  fame  Reafon  as  above, 
.becaufe  they  were  under  an  extraordinary  Providence.  And  now  let  us  fee 
.to  what  the  Benefit  amounts. 

The  Pagans  had  a  future  State  to  fupport  their  Society  and  Religion. 
But  then,  fo  circumftanced,  that  it  was  of  Service  to  Society  only,  al- 
though both  wanted  it. 
The  jews  had  no  future  State  to  fupport  their  Society  and  Religion. 
But  then,  neither  wanted  it. 
And  now,  I  pray  you,  on  which  Side  lies  the  Balance  of  the  Benefit  ?     Wc 
commonly  hear  it  faid,  t]\^l  feeing  is  believing :  but  I  fufpeft  our  Examiner 
'has  been  impofcd  on  by  a  very  different  Aphorifm,  as  abfurd  in  the  Thought 
as  the  other  is  in  the  Expreffion,  that  belitving  his  having  a  Principle  not 
unworthy  of  his  School.     Elfe  how  comes  he  to  place  fo  great  a  Benefit  in 
the  Point  in  Queflion,  if  he  did  not  fuppofe  that  the  Jews'  want  of  the  Doc- 
trine deprived  them  of  the  Thing  ? 

But  have  I  not  been  reckoning  all  this  Time  without  my  Hofl,  while  I 
argued  againft  thefe  filly  Prejudices,  upon  the  Confefi5on  of  an  extraordinary 
Providence?  For,  difputing  here  with  C/^r//?/^?^  Mfw,  i  'h2ive  fuppofe  d  that 
they  believed  fuch  a  Difpenfation.  And  prudent  was  it  in  me  fo  to  do. 
For  had  I  been  called  upon  to  prove  my  Suppofifion,  I  do  not  know  whether 
-what  I  could  fay  would  have  fatisfied  the  judicious  Reader,  who  had  ob- 
ferved  that  all  the  Arguments  they  ufe  againft  me  receive  the  little  Force 

*  Page  123. 

they 


Postscript.     OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.     377 

they  have  on  a  contrary  Suppoficion.  And  even  this  private  Letter-writer, 
one  of  the  mod  candid  of  his  kind,  had  flill  a  Rcafon  in  refcrvc,  to  prove 
why  the  Promife  of  Life,  in  his  favourite  Text  of  Leviticus,  miifl:  needs 
mean  eternal  Life,  and  not  temporal  only,  which  looks  very  much  that  way  ; 
it  is,  becaufe  the  beji  Men  (he  fays)  ivere  cften  cut  off  in  the  niidjl  of  tbeir 
Days,  and  frequently  fiiff ere d  greater  Adverfuies  than  the  mofi  profligate  Sinners. 
Who  now  that  had  even  a  Mind  to  let  us  fee  he  believed  nothing  of  the 
Matter,  could  have  exprcffed  his  Meaning  in  ftrongcr  or  more  fignificant 
Terms  ?  I  am  not  afhamed  to  confefs  I  read  my  Bible ;  and  believed  what 
it  told  me  of  this  cxtraordinay  Providence ;  and,  in  the  Simplicity  of  my 
Heart,  would  needs  try  if  I  could  make  the  Deifl.  believe  too.  I  found  it 
was  this  that  moft  revolted  him  :  and  therefore  undertook  to  prove,  from 
the  very  Conflitution  of  their  Oeconomy,  that  the  Reprefcntation  muft  needs 
be  true,  and  fo,  while  I  was  removing  his  ObjeSlions  to  Revelation,  give 
him  a  Demonflration  of  its  Truth.  In  the  mean  time,  I  little  fufpefted  that 
a  Set  of  Men,  who  call  themfclves  Believers,  would,  for  the  Sake  only  of 
combating  the  Medium  of  my  Demonflration,  ever  venture  to  call  in  Qiief- 
tion  that  very  Fa6t  for  which  I  was  contending  with  their  Adverfaries ;  and 
in  a  way  their  Adverfaries  (except  it  were  perhaps  Spinofa  and  his  Man 
Toland)  had  never  attempted,  namely,  by  a  virtual  Denial  of  the  Repre- 
feniation.  If  this  was  to  be  contefted  me,  I  could  have  wifhed,  for  the 
Honour  of  Revelation,  it  had  been  done  by  the  profeffed  Enemies  of  it : 
And  then  I  could  have  expofed  their  Prevarication  without  much  Regret. 
As  it  is,  I  rather  chufe  to  draw  a  Veil  over  this  Infinnily  of  the  Flflo;  and 
WAIT  FOR  the  Renewal  of  a  right  Spirit  within  than. 


Vol.  VI.  Ccc  REMARKS 


REMARKS 

ON     SEVERAL 

OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS 

In    answer     to 

The  Reverend  Doctors 
ST'EBBING     and     S    T  K    E    S. 

Serving  to  explain  and  juftify  the  Two  Dissertations  in  the 

DIVINE       LEGATION, 

CONCERNING    THE 

Command  to  Abraham  to  offer  up  bis  Son; 

AND    THE 

Nature  of  the  Jewish  Theocracy  ; 
Obje£ted  to  by  thofe  Learned  Writers. 

PART     II.      and  Laft. 

Arcades  ambo, 
Et  cantare  pares,  et  respondere  parati.         Virg. 


C  C  C    2 


Quid  immerentes  hofpites  vexas,  Canis, 

Ignavus  adverfum  Lupos  ? 
Nam,  qualis  aut  Moloffus,  aut  fulvus  Lacon, 

Amiga  vis  Pastoribus, 
Agatn  per  altas  aure  fublata  nives, 

Quaecunque  praecedet  Fera. 
Tu  quiim  timenda  voce  complefti  Nemus, 

Projectum  odoraris  Cibum.  Hor. 


C   381   ] 


R      E       F       A       C       E. 


TH  E  two  Subjects  here  debated  will  deferve  the  Attention 
of  every  ferious  Behever  ;  efpecially,  thofe  of  my  own  Or- 
der. For  the  Sake  of  fuch,  I  fhall  juft  hazard  a  few  Obfervations, 
which  I  thought  rather  too  good  to  be  thrown  away  upon  thofe 
whom  the  following  Sheets  more  immediately  concerned. 

I.  The  Reader  finds  here,  what  the  Learned  Dr.  Sfebblng  has^ 
been  able  to  ohje£l  to  my  Interpretation  of  the  Command  to  Abra- 
ham :  Which,  I  prefume,  when  fairly  attended  to,  will  be  no 
light  Confirmation  of  its  Truth.  But,  as  I  have  no  Notions  to  ad- 
vance, not  founded  in  a  fincere  Defire  to  demonflrate  the  Divinity 
of  our  Holy  Religion,  I  would  by  no  means  take  the  Advantage  of 
a  weak  Adverfary,  to  recommend  them  to  the  public  Acceptance. 
I  hold  it  not  honeft,  therefore,  to  conceal  an  Objedlion  to  my  In- 
terpretation, by  far  more  plaufible  than  any  that  zealous  Gentleman 
has  urged  againft  it;  which  is  This,  "  That  it  is  difficult  to  cou- 
*'  ceive  how  a  Circumflance  of  fo  much  Importance  to  Revelation, 
*'  as  the  removing  one  of  the  ftrongeft  infidel  Objedions  againft  its 
"  Truth,  and  proving  a  real  Connexion  between  the  two  Difpen- 
*'  fations  of  it,  fhould  never  be  clearly  explained  and  inlilled  on  by 
*'  the  Writers  of  the  New  Teftament,  though  the  Hirtorian  of  the 
*'  Old  might  have  had  fufficient  Reafons  f^r  concealing  it.''  To 
which  i  beg  Leave  to  reply,  that  it  is  very  certa-n,  that  many 
Truths  of  great  importance,  for  the  Support  of  Religion  againft 

Infidelity^ 


-83  PREFACE     TO    REMARKS     ON 

Infidelity,  were  taught  by  Jcfui  to  his  Difciples  (amongft  which,  I 
reckon  this  Interpretation  to  be  one)  which  never  came  down,  by 
their  Conveyance,  to  t!ie  Church.  But  being,  by  the  Afiiftance  of 
God's  Holy  Spirit,  diicoverable  by  thofe  who  devote  themfelves  to 
the  Study  of  the  Scriptures  with  a  pure  Mind,  have,  for  the  wife 
Ends  of  Providence,  infcrutable  to  us,  been  left  for  the  Induftry 
of  Man  to  find  out,  that,  as  occafioii  required,  every  Age  might 
fuppiy  new  Evidence  of  God's  Truth,  to  put  to  Silence  the  Ignorance 
ofjooljh  Men  :  And  that,  in  proportion  as  the  Power  of  Darknefs 
thickened,  fo  might  the  Splendour  of  the  Gofpel  light ;  that  Light 
which  was  ordained,  at  laft,  entirely  to  difperfc  it.  In  fupport  of 
what  is  here  faid,  I  beg  the  Reader  to  refle£l  on  what  is  told  us  by 
the  Evangelift,  of  the  Converfation  between  Jefus  (after  his  Refur- 
re^tlon)  and  the  two  Difciples  journeying  to  Emmaus;  where  their 
Mafter  fays  unto  them,  O  Fools,  ai-td  Jlois  cf  Heart  to  believe  all  that 
thi  Prophets  have  fpohnl  0-tgbt  not  Chrift  to  have  fuffered  thefe 
Things,  and  to  enter  into  his  Glory  ?  And  beginning  at  MosES,  arid 
xtll  the  Prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  the  Things  concerning  him- 
Jelf*.  Now  who  can  doubt,  but  that  many  Things  were  here  re- 
vealed, which  would  have  greatly  contributed  to  the  Demonftratioii 
•of  the  Gofpel  Truth  ?  Yet  hath  it  pleafed  Providence  that  this 
Dlfcourfe  (hould  never  be  recorded.  But  that  the  Apoflles  ufed, 
and  made  a  good  ufe  too,  of  thofe  Inftruftions,  we  have  the  plaineft 
Evidence  from  their  amazing  Succefs  ia  the  Converfion  of  the 
World,  by  this  Application  of  the  Writings  oi Mojes  and  the  Pro- 
phets. And  if  I  be  not  greatly  deceived,  amongfl:  Truths  inforced 
on  thofe  Occafions,  that,  which  I  prefume  to  have  difcovered  in  the 
Command  to  Abraham,  was  not  forgotten.  Let  the  unprejudiced 
Reader  judge.  St.  Paul,  making  his  Apology  before  King  ^^r//>/)^, 
recapitulates  his  Defence  in  thefe  Words  :  Having  therefore  obtained 
help  of  God,  I  continue  unto  this  Day  witnefing  both  to  fmall  and  great, 
faying  none  other  Things  than  thofe  which  the  Prophets^  and  MosES, 

*  Su  Luke,  chap.  xxiv.  vcr.  26,  27. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  383 

DID  SAY  SHOULD  COME  :  that  Q.\\x\Qi  fiouhi  fuffer^  and  that  he  Jhould 
be  the  firft  that  Jlmuld  rife  from  the  Dead  *.     The  Greek  is  rather 

ftronger,  in  predicating  this  Circumftance  o£ Mofcs Zv  ts  0  ttos- 

(priToit  IXaKtitrav  [ji.eXXcv]uv  •yi\ea-9ot,t  KAI  MfiEHS.  Now  wliere,  let 
me  aik,  in  all  his  Writings,  except  in  the  Command  to  Abraham^  is 
there  the  leaft  Trace  of  any  fuch  Circumftance,  as  that  Chriji JJjould 
fuffer,  and  that  he  Jlmuld  be  the  fir  ft  that  JJjould  rife  from  the  Dead? 
Or  in  that  Command  either,  if"  not  underflood  according  to  our 
Interpretation  ? 

But  further,  as  the  Apoftles  did  not  convey  feveral  llluflrious 
Truths  taught  them  by  their  Mafter  to  the  Churches  wliich  tliey 
founded  :  So  neither  (and  doubtlefs  for  the  fame  wife  Ends  of  Pro- 
vidence) did  the  Churches  convey  down  to  Pofterity  feveral  Truths 
revealed  to  them  by  the  Apoftles.  An  Inftance  of  which  we  have 
in  St.  PciuPs  fecond  Eplftle  to  the  TheJfa!Gnians,  where,  fpeaking  of 
Anti-Chrify  or  the  Man  of  Sin,  he  reminds  the  Church  of  what  it 
was  he  told  them  yet  leti  or  hindered  his  Coming. — Remember  ye 
not,  that,  when  I  was  yet  with  you,  I  told  you  thefe  things  ?  And 
now  you  know  what  withhokielh  that  he  might  be  revealed  in  his  Time. 
But  the  Knowledge  of  this  lett  or  hindrance  the  Church  of  God 
hath  long  loft.  And  yet  it  is  a  Matter  of  very  high  Concernment. 
I  have  ever  thought,  the  Prophefies  relating  to  Antichrift,  inter- 
fperfed  up  and  down  the  New  and  Old  Teftament,  the  moft  con- 
vincing Proof  of  the  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion  that  any  moral 
Matter  is  capable  of  receiving.  That  a  Roman  Power  is  meant,  is 
fo  exceeding  evident,  that  it  is  that  Point  in  which  all  Parties  are 
agreed.  But  to  fix  it  to  the  individual  Power  (a  Deterrninatioa 
highly  intereftiiig  both  tlie  Truth  and  Purity  of  Religion)  it  mufi 
firft  be  known  whether  the  Power  Ipoken  of  be  Civil  or  EccLfuifli- 
cal.  Proteftants,  in  general,  think  they  fee  all  the  Marks  of  the 
latter.  The  Catholics,  as  they  are  called,  contend  of  Neceflity  lor 
the  former  :  And  they  have  many  great  Names  even  among  us  oa 

*  Aifts,  Chap,  xxvi,  ver.  22,  25. 

clieir 


i8+     PREFACE  TO  REMARKS  ON 

their  Side  (by  what  odd  Concurrence  of  Circumftances,  may  be  con- 
fidered  in  atiother  Place).  Tliis  has  long  embarrafled  a  Queftlon,  on 
the  right  Determination  of  whicii  alone,  I  am  fully  perfuaded,  one 
might  reft  the  wiiole  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Caufe.  Now  the 
Knowledge  of  what  it  was  tliat  kit  or  hindered  the  Appearance  of 
AntichriH:,  which  St  Paul  communicated  to  the  Church  oi  Thejfa- 
loniCii,  would  at  once  determine  the  Qiieftion.  But  this  is  the  State 
hi  which  it  iiath  plealed  Providence  to  place  the  Church  of  Chrijl : 
With  abundant  Evidence  to  fupport  itfelf  againfl:  Infidelity  ;  yet  fo 
much  left  to  be  difcovered  as  may  rightly  exercife  the  Faith  and 
Induftry  of  all  humble  and  fobjr  Adorers  of  the  Crofs.  Which 
however  fhew  s  it  was  not  the  Intent  of  Providence  that  one  of  thefe 
Virtues  fhould  thrive  at  the  Expence  of  the  other.  Therefore  when 
my  learned  Adverfary  *,  in  order,  I  will  believe,  to  advance  Chrif- 
tian  Faith,  would  difcourage  Chtillian  Induftry,  by  calumniating, 
and  rendering  fufpeded,  what  he  is  pleafed  to  call  Experiments  iu 
Religion,  it  is,  I  am  afraid,  at  beft,  but  a  Z-^al  without  Knowledge. 
Indeed,  if  Men  will  come  to  this  Study  with  unwajhed  Hands^  that 
is,  without  a  due  Reverence  of  the  Dignity  of  thefe  facred  Volumes; 
or,  what  is  as  ill  in  the  other  extreme,  with  unpurged  Heads,  that 
is,  {luffed  full  of  Syftems,  or  made  giddy  by  Enthufiafm,  It  is  not 
unreafonable  to  expert  the  Succefs  which  Dr.  Stebbing  pretends  to 
have  obferved.  But  then,  let  him  keep  his  Advice  for  thofe  whom 
it  concerns. 

II.  The  other  Subjed:  debated  In  this  Pamphlet  Is  of  the  Theo- 
cracy of  the  Jews.  Having  undertaken  to  prove  the  Divinity  of 
the  Mofak  Religion  from  the  adtual  Adminlftratlon  of  an  extraor- 
dinary Providence  over  that  State  in  general,  and  over  private  Men 
in  particular,  by  the  Medium  of  the  Omiflion  of  a  future  State  of 
Rewards  and  Punifhments  In  their  Oeconomy ;  what  I  had  to  do 
was  to  (hew  from  Scripture,  that  fuch  aDifpenfation  of  Providence 
was  there  reprefented  to  have   been  admlnlllered.     This  I  did  two 

*  Dr.  Stebbing. 

Ways 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  385 

Ways,  from  the  Nature  of  the  thing  ;  and  from  tlie  exprefs  Words 
of  Scripture.  Under  the  firfl:  Head,  I  fliewed  *  that,  from  the 
Nature  of  a  TZ/^ocz-^r)',  it  ncccffarily  followed,  by  as  plain  an  In- 
duftloii  as  that  Protedion  follows  Obedience  to  the  Civil  Magif- 
trate,  that  there  muft  be  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  the  State 
in  general,  and  over  all  the  Members  of  it  in  particular.  And  that 
though  a  Theocracy  were  only  pretended,  yet,  if  the  Inftitutor  of 
it  knew  the  meaning  of  his  own  Contrivance,  he  mufl:,  of  courje, 
pretend  this  extraordinary  Providence  likewife.  In  fupport  of  which 
laft  Obfervation  I  have  fliewn  *,  in  the  fecond  Place,  that  fuch  a 
Difpenfation  of  Providence  is  aiElually,  and  in  exprefs  Words  of 
Scripture,  faid  to  be  admluiftered.  After  this,  what  lias  an  Un- 
believer to  do  (for  it  is  hard  to  think  how  any  other  ftiould  have 
any  thing  to  do  in  it)  who  would  invalidate  this  R(prefentation,  but 
either  to  deny  that  the  JewiJIi  Form  of  Government  was  Theocrati- 
cnl,  and,  by  that  means,  endeavour  to  deprive  me  oixhejirji  of  my 
Proofs,  from  the  Nature  of  the  thing:  Or  to  allow  this  pretended 
T^beocracy\  yet  fliew  from  Fa<fl,  by  Scripture  Hiftory,  that  ilich  a 
Difpenfation  of  Providence  was  not  adminiftered  ;  which  would 
fubverc  both  my  Proofs.  And  this  fure  none  but  an  Unbeliever 
could  deliberately  do,  becaufe  it  argues  Mofes  of  Impofture.  For 
if  an  extraordinary  Providence  to  the  State  and  to  Particulars  necef- 
farlly  follows  a  Theocracy,  and  yet  fuch  a  Providence  was  not  ac- 
tually adminiftered,  then  this  Theocracy  was  not  real,  but  pre- 
tended only.  Now  Dr.  Cykes  has  undertaken  to  prove  tiiat  the  ex- 
traordinary Difpenfation  of  Providence  did  not  extend  to  particu- 
lars. In  this  I  blame  him  not.  Every  Man  mufl:  think  for  liim- 
felf;  and  the  Objcdion  is  fairly  urged.  But  what  creates  my 
Wonder  is,  that  when,  contrary  to  common  Senfe  and  common 
Scripture,  he  pretends  to  admit  an  extraordinary  Providence  to  the 
State  in  Confequence  of  a  Theocracy,  while  he  oppofes  that  to  parti- 
culars, he  (hould  yet  think  to  pafs  upon  his  Reader  for  an  Advocate 
of  the  Bible.     If  he  fees  the  thing  in  the  Light  here  Hated,  what  an 

*   Both  in  The  Divine  Legation  and  in  this  Pamphlet. 

Vol.  VI.  Ddd  '  Opinic 


Jinion 


386  PREFACE    TO    REMARKS,    G?<r. 

Opinion  muft  he  have  of  the  Public  ?  If  he  fees  it  not,  what  an 
Opinion  moft  the  Public  have  of  him?  But  let  him  debate  this 
Point  witli  iiimklf  at  lelfiire.  All  the  Advantage  I  have  taken  of 
his  bad  Reafoning  is  not  to  difcover,  nor  confcquently  to  difcredit, 
his  Opinions ;  but  merely  to  fupport  my  own. 

III.  hi  the  lafl:  Place,  it  may  be  permitted  me  to  obferve,  that 
thefe  two  learned  DotSors,  who  imagine,  that  ail  the  Time  they 
have  been  writing  againft  me,  they  were  oppofing  the  Conclujion  of 
The  Divine  Legation,  have,  indeed,  allowed  all  I  wanted  to  make  my 
Argument  demonflrative  :  Dr.  Slebbing,  by  owning  that  MoJ'es  did 
not  teach  ^  nor  had  it  in  CommiJJion  to  teach,  a  future  State  of  Rewards 
and  Pwipmcnts',  and  Yix.Sykes,  by  owning  that  ^«  extraordinary 
Providence  was  adminijiered over  the  Jevvifh  State  and  People  in  gene- 
ral. If  it  be  aiked  then  vvhy  I  would  clog  my  Argument,  by  in- 
fifting  on  the  JtwiJJj  People'' s  Ignorance  in  general  of  a  future  State,  and 
the  Adminiftration  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  to  particulars  ;  I 
reply,  it  was  on  the  lame  Principle  that  Mofes  clogged  his  Inflitution 
with  a  Theocracy,  He  did  it  in  Obedience  to  the  Divine  Command; 
and  I,  out  of  my  Obfervance  to  Truth.  But  had  he  been  of  that 
Species  of  Lawgivers  in  which  Dr.  Sykes  feems  to  rank  him,  I  con- 
clude he  would  not  have  unneceffarily  inftltuted  a  form  of  Govern- 
ment that  muft,  at  every  ftep,  have  detefted  his  Impofture.  And 
had  I  wrote  to  advance  my  own  Notions,  the  equitable  Reader  will 
conclude  I  Ihould  never  have  given  fo  many  needlefs  Provocations  to 
this  tefty  Race  of  Answerers. 

^/n7i4,    1745. 


REMARKS 


t    Z'^7    3 


REMARKS 


ON    SEVERAL 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS. 


PART    THE    SECOND. 


THE  Curious  Reader  of  the  many  and  various  Anfwerers  of 
the  Divine  Legat'wn  (if  any  fuch  tliere  be)  cannot  chufe  but 
fmile  to  fee  them  fo  unanimoufly  concur  in  reprefenting  me  as 
defperately  enamoured  of  Controverfy,  and  refolute  and  determined 
for  the  laft  Word  ;  efpecially,  when  it  is  obferved,  that,  of  Ten 
or  Twelve  very  fizable  Booirs,  written  againft  it,  I  have  taken  no- 
tice of  a  fmall  part  only  of  Two  or  Three.  Wl.it  their  Motives 
were,  iu  this  reprefentation,  is  neither  worth  mine,  nor  the  Rea- 
der's wliile,  to  conjedure.  The  plain  fact  is,  I  vvould  \\illingly 
avoid  all  controvfrfy,  fo  far  as  is  confiftent  with  a  regard  to  the 
Public ;  to  which  \  have  thought  fit  to  appeal ;  and,  to  which, 
confequently,  I  hise  given  a  kind  of  right  to  expecl,  cither  an  An- 
fwer  to  all  material  Objedtions,  or  a  Confeffion  of  tlieir  Force. 

D  d  d  2  For 


38  3  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

For  fucii  as  thcfe  I  have  ftill  waited ;  and  now  find  I  am  likely 
to  wait.  In  the  meaiv  time,  I  mu(V  either  be  Client,  or  take  up 
with  what  Fortune  fends.  And  who  could  be  long  undetermined? 
For  he  muft  be  very  fond  of  Controverfy  indeed,  who  would 
think  of  entering  into  a  ferious  Dilpute,  either  with  him,  who 
holds  That  ri^tuml  Religion  has  not,  and  yet  the  Law  of  Mofes  has, 
the  San^ion  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifoments  *  ;  Or 
with  that  other^  who  cannot  fee,  and  therefore,  with  a  modeft  Bold- 
nefs  peculiar  to  the  blind,  affirms  "  there  is  not  the  leaft-  connexion 
•'  between  the  two  propofitions,  an  extraordinary  Providence  and  the 
*'  Omijfion  of  a  future  State  -!-•"     With  the  fame  quicknefs  of  Sight, 

1  make 

*  An  Eflay  on  the  Nature  and  Obligations  of  Virtue,  by  T.  Rutherforth,  B.  D. 
Fellow  of  St.  John's  College  in  Cambridge,  and  of  the  Royal  Society.    Cambridge. 

f  The  Belief  of  a  future  State  proved  to  be  a  fundamental  Article  of  the  Religion  of 
the  Hebrews,  &c.  By  John  Jackfon,  Redor  of  Rofington,  &c.  London. — p.  64.  Where 
the  Reader  will  fee,  that  all  his  Objeftions,  even  to  the  very  Blunders,  have  been  ob- 
viated or  anfwered  by  me  long  ago.  An  Inflance  of  this,  as  it  now  happens  to  lye  be- 
fore me,  will  not  be  unentertaining. "  As  a  Future  State  (fays  he)  may  be  demort- 

"  ftrably  deduced  from  Principles  of  natural  Reafon,  so  it  is  contained  in  the  Pro- 
«'  pofition  laid  down  by  St.  Paul,  He  that  comcth  to  God  (as  a  Worfhipper  of  him)  muft 
*'  hilitvc  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  Rewardcr  of  thofe  'who  diligently  fcek  him,  Heb.  xi.  6." 
P.  9.  His  Argument  requires  him  to  mean  ncccjjarily  con-ained.  But  before  that  can  be 
iht^vn,  it  muft  be  proved  that  God  cannot,  in  this  World,  reward  thofe  who  diligently 
feck  lim  ;  And  he  who  fliould  go  about  to  prove  that,  would  go  near  to  contradid  all 
which  Mcfes  has  faid,  in  the  Sanftion  of  his  Law,  "  that  God  not  only  could,  but 
^^ -would,  reward  thofe,  in  this  World,  who  diligently  feek  him."  But  St.  Pa«/knew 
what  he  faid,  though  this  Man  does  not.  He  knew  the  Propofition  did  not  neccjfaril-),, 
but  might,  or  might  not,  contain  a  future  State,  juft  as  the  Writer  applied  it  :  And 
he  delivered  it  accordingly.  Firfl,  As  he  was  an  txaSt  Reafoner,  Becaufe  the  fupport 
of  Religion  depends  not  on  Rewards  here  or  hereafter;  but  on  the  i-j«ij/Difl:ribution  of 
them,  'wherefocver  they  are  conferred.  Secondly,  he  wzs  a.  pertinent  V^t&ione.t,  bee  une 
he  would  include  the  Sandion  of  the  Mofaic  as  well  as  Chrlftian  Religion  ;  the  finl  of 
which  (as  he  tells  us  elfewhere)  bad  the  Promije  of  the  Life  that  now  is;  the  oilier,  of 
that  •u.hich  is  to  come.  This  Blunder,  as  the  Reader  may  remember,  was  expoicd  m  the 
firfl  Fart  of  thefe  Remarks,  p.  371.  But  I  would  recommend  Mr.  Jackion's  whole 
Pamphlet  to  his  Perufal  as  a  Specimen  of  that  illuftrious  Band,  in  whicli  he  has  thought 

fit 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.       3S9 

I  make  no  doubt  he  would  affirm,  that  there  is  not  the  Icajl  ConneC' 
tion  between  the  old  Engli/h  Honour,  and  the  long  Omi/Jion  of  a 
Qualification  Law  for  Members  of  the  Houfe  of  Commons  :  And 
is  therefore  to  be  referred  to  the  Clafs  of  thofe  whom  1  fend  for 
an  Anfvver,  to  the  Story  of  B ertrand  znd  his  Reading  Glafles. 

But  when,  at  prefent,  no  urgent  Occafion  drove  me  to  trouble 
the  Reader  in  my  own  Vindication,  an  inviting  Opportunity  offered 
itfelf,  of  revenging  Letters  in  general,  on  their  very  worft  and 
moft  relentlefs  Enemy,  the  Answerer  by  Profession.  Of  whofe 
Trade  happening  to  fpeak  with  the  Contempt  that  it  deferves,  I 
Was  accufed  by  the  du/i  Malice  of  thefe  Anftverers  themfelves  to 
mean  the  Gentlemen  of  the  long-Robe  ;  the  moft  learned  as  well  as 
ufeful  Body  in  the  State  ;  and,  by  far,  the  moll:  capable  Part  of 
that  Public  to  whofe  Lay-judgment  I  had  appealed  :  The  only  Men 
who  fpenk  Senfe  concerning  moral  Obligation,  and  the  beft 
Judges  of  Truth,  by  their  Knowledge  of  moral  Evidence  : 
Their  habitual  Acquaintance  witli  its  Nature  and  with  the  propor_ 
tioned  Weight  accompanying  every  varying  Degree  of  Probability, 
(a  Knowledge  where  Reafon  is  in  its  Sovereignty)  qualifying  them 
to  determine  in  all  clear  Queftions  of  Religion.  But  as  the  plaineft 
Defcription  could  not  fecure  me  againfl  fo  ridiculous  a  Calumny  ; 
it  may  be  proper  to  prefent  the  Reader  with  the  Originals  them- 
felves. Two  of  which.  Fortune  hath  juft  thrown  into  my  Hands  ; 
and  two  the  moft  curious  of  their  kind.  They  had  been  Anfwerers 
from  their  early  Youth  ;  and,  as  the  Heads  of  oppofite  Parties, 
never  yet  agreed  in   any  one  thing    but   in  writing  againft  the 

fit  to  inlift  ;  and  which  indeed  would  have  been  imperfeft  without  this  Jlnfivcrcr  General; 
who  has  all  his  Life  long  oppofed  himfelf  to  whatever  received  the  Public  Approbation  : 
And  after  having  written  againft  the  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  of  the  Human  Soul,  does  me 
too  much  Honour  to  be  entirely  overlooked.  Which  however,  it  is  probable  he  had 
been,  but  for  thefe  Words  in  his  Title  Page, —  The  DoBrine  of  the  ancient  Philnfaphers  con- 
cerning a  future  State  Jl.tcztm  to  be  con/ijient  -with  Reafon.  A  vile  Infiniiation  !  Intimating 
that  1  had  written  fomething  againjl  the  Rcafonabienefs  of  that  Doftiinc. 

Divine. 


390  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Dh'tne  Legation.  Here  they  went  to  work  as  Brethren  :  and,  in- 
deed, not  without  Realon  :  The  Book  was  niaiiifeftly  calculated  to 
fpoil  their  Trade. 

Thefc  Reverend  Veterans,  whom  one  may,  not  improperly,  call 
IFcirdcns  of  the  Company,  had  both,  as  we  fay,  trod  the  fame  Path 
to  Glory, 

Ille  pedum  mclior  motu  — 
Wc  membrh  et  mole  valens  -— 

and  ftuck  themfelves  to  the  Fortunes  and  Principles  of  two  truly 
great  Men,  to  whom,  the  prefent  happy  Eftabllfliment  is  exceed- 
ingly indebted;  to  the  One,  for  his  fiipport  of  our  Religious  Confti- 
tution  J  to  the  Other,  for  that  of  our  Civil.  In  the  Profecution  of 
which  Services,  juft  Reafons  of  Church  and  State  had  drawn 
them  into  different  Ways  of  thinking  and  engaged  in  a  very 
warm  Controverfy,  where  the  Interefts  of  both  were  capitally 
concerned. 

Into  this  famous  Difpute,  without  any  other  Preparation  than  a 
willing  Mind,  and  a  ftrong  Defire  to  be  doing,  our  two  Squires- 
Errant  would  needs  thruft  themfelves,  to  bear  the  Wallet,  for 
Salve  and  Lint,  and  the  Balfam  of  Fierabras :  Where  they  battled 
it,  unaiked,  with  the  broken  Launces,  that  fell  on  each  fide,  from 
the  conflict  of  their  Mafters.  But  let  not  the  Reader  imagine  thefe 
were  only  Things  they  picked  up  in  the  Combat.  For,  though 
the  Difpute  was,  whether  a  pure  Virgin  Church  fhould  be  given  up 
to  the  polluted  and  prophane  Embraces  of  old  Civil  Policy  ;  yet  our 
Squires,  like  honeft  Sancho  Pancha  at  the  Marriage-feaft  of  the  fair 
^iteria,  agreed  not  to  quarrel  with  the  Scum  of  good  Cnmacho's 
Kitchen.  In  a  word,  not  to  diflionour  them  by  Comparilons,  like 
Homer  s  Heroes,  they  did  their  Work,  and  dln'd. 

But  now  that  both  have  been  fo  much  luckier  than  Men  gene- 
rally are  after  a  drawn- battle,  one  would  imagine  they  (hould.liave 
been  glad  to  give  the  poor  remainder  of  their  Lives  a  little  Reft ; 

and 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  391 

and  not  go  out  again  feeking  Adventures,  where  nothing  was  to 
be  expedltd  but  dry  Blows.  For  the  golden  Days  of  Controverfy 
had  been  long  over.  Here  was  no  Church  to  be  defended  but  that 
of  Mofes ;  which  would  hardly  bear  its  own  Charges.  A  ^ewijlj 
Theocracy  was  a  barren  Field,  compared  to  an  Engli/lj  EftabUfh- 
rnent ;  and  a  Conflidl  In  thofe  quarters  was  like  a  Battle  in  Fairy- 
land, which  atFords  no  Spoils  but  In  Delcription.  The  fage  Sa/uho 
might,  here  again,  have  been  their  Example,  who  was  glad  at 
laft,  even  unknighted,  to  retire  with  the  moderate  gratification  of 
a  Bill  of  exchange  for  three  Afles.     But, 

"  Our  Beavor'd  Knights,  who  bear  upon  tlieir  Shield 

"  Three  Steeples  argent  in  a  fable  Field,'* 

areflill  reftlefs  and  unfiitisfied,  and  afpiring  after  the  Golden  Hel- 
met OF  Mambrino. 

Since  therefore  they  have  thought  fit  once  more  to  entertain  the 
Public,  1  will  do  my  part  that  they  lofe  not  the  laft  and  only  re- 
ward yet  unpaid  them,  a  Ceremonial  and  folemn  Plaudlte :  that 
the  Pofterity  of  thole  whom  they  fo  well  entertained  In  the  laft 
Age,  may  underftand  what  good  Judges  their  Fathers  were  of 
Merit.  For  Merit  they  laid  claim  to  ;  and  this  fearch  after  Adven- 
tures, they  called'  a  fearch  after  Truth.  For  the  eafieft  of  all  things 
is  to  give  a  good  Name ;  as  the  hardeft  is  to  deferve  one.  Thus, 
(ill  the  manner  of  thefe  Moderators  between  Truth  and  Falfehood) 
the  ToY-MAN  OP  Bath,  with  great  Solemnity  of  Face  informs  you, 
that  he  is  a  Fadlor  between  the  Poor  and  the  Rich.  Not  that  this 
Importance  would  be  much  amifs,  If  it  ftopt  there;  as  affording 
oLbers  (vvho  take  the  thing  right,  in  the  fenfe  oi  making  the  mofi  of 
both')  a  very  innocent  occafion  of  mirth  :  But  the  milchief  is,  It 
is  apt  to  give  them  wrong  Notions  of  themfelvcs  :  And  the  An- 
Jwerer  begins  ^'o  think  hlmfelf  a  Servant  of  Truth  ;  and  the  Toy- 
man, an  uleful  i\>mber  in  the  State. 

But  I  fhould  be  vti  v  unjuft  to  my  own  Order,  did  I  fuffer  the 
Reader  to  remain  under  a  wrong  Impreliion,  as  if  thefe  were  the 

ufual 


:;9i  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

ufiial  ways  of  riling  to  the  Honours  of  the  Gown.  I  have  the 
Pleafure  of  feeing,  in  the  number  of  my  Friends,  many  who  have 
made  their  Fortune  by  fupporting  the  Dignity  of  Schohirs,  and 
preferving  the  Integrity  of  Churchmen.  And  it  is  with  high  Sa- 
tisfaftion  I  can  take  tliis  occafion  of  doing  Juftice  to  the  Merit  of 
two  of  them  in  particular,  who  have  both  greatly  diftinguifhed  them- 
felves,  in  the  common  Service  of  Religion,  againfl  Libertlnilm  and 
Infidelity.  In  which,  the  one  has  fo  employed  his  great  talents  of 
Reafoning,  and  profound  Knowledge  in  true  Philofophy  ;  and  the 
other,  his  familiar  Acquaintance  with  Antiquity,  and  his  exadt  and 
critical  Sl:ill  in  the  Languages ;  as  to  do  all  that  can,  in  thefe 
Times,  be  expefted  from  the  ableft  Servants  of  Truth,  to  put  In- 
fidelity to  filence  :  While  at  the  fame  time,  to  approve  their  own 
Sincerity,  they  have  been  fo  far  from  looking  with  a  jealous  or  fuf- 
j)lcious  Eye  on  others  engaged  with  them  in  the  fame  Service,  that 
it  was  with  Pleafure  they  faw  new  Lights  attempted  to  be  ftruck 
out  for  its  fupport;  and  with  Readinefs  that  they  lent  their  beft 
Afliftance  to  put  them  in  a  way  of  being  fairly  confidered.  I 
need  not  tell  the  Reader,  that  in  this  Account  I  pay  a  very  fparing 
Tribute  to  the  Merit  of  the  -worthy  Deans  of  Chrjjl-Church  and 
Winchepr  *- 

REMARK     I. 

BUT  it  Is  now  time  our  Heroes  fliould  anfwer  for  themfelves. 
The  Examiner  of  my  fecond  Propojition  leads  the  way  :  Who,  at  the 
time  of  writing  my  Appendix  to  the  firfl:  part  of  thefe  Remarks,  I 
had  not  the  leaft  conception  to  be  Dr.  Stebbing.  And  when  after- 
wards I  found  the  Pamphlet  generally  given  to  him,  I  had  ffiU 
one  very  particular  Reafon  not  to  credit  the  Report.  But  when 
(on  the  beft  Information)  I  could  no  longer  doubt  of  the  Author, 
I  fent  him  Word,  that,  if  he  would  own  his  Book,  I  would 
give  it  a  full  Anfwer.     He  defired  to  be  excufed :  And  ftill  hides 

*  Dr.  John  Conybear  and  Dr.  Zach.  Pearce. 

his 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS. 


393 


his  head  ;  fo  that  we  muft  try  to  catch  this  Eel  of  Con t rove riy 
by  the  Tall ;  the  only  part  which  fticks  out  of  the  Mud  ;  more 
dirty  indeed  than  fllppery ;  and  ftlU  more  weak  than  dirty :  as 
paffing  through  a  Trap  where  he  was  forced,  at  every  Step,  to  leave 
part  of  his  Skin,  that  Is,  his  Syftem*,  behind  him.  His  Jfpcfu/.'x 
therefore,  the  part  yet  unitouched,  Ihall  be  the  Subjed  of  our  fol- 
lowing Remarks :  It  is  intituled,  Conjiderutiois  on  the  Command  to 
offer  up  his  Son.  In  this  he  oppofes  an  Explanation,  which,  if 
true,  will  be  owned  by  all  to  be  of  the  hlghefl  Service  to  Religion. 
1  fhall  therefore  beg  leave  to  quote  and  re-examine  it  Paragrapli  by 
Paragraph. 

By  which  it  will  be  feen,  that,  as  Cicero  fays  oiVelkius  the  Epi- 
curean, "  He  fears  nothing  fo  much  as  to  appear  to  the  Reader  to 
"  doubt  of  any  thing  t :"  And  hopes  nothing  fo  much  as  that  the 
Reader  will  never  doubt  of  him.  Hence  it  is,  that  he,  all  the  way, 
boldly  denies  what  he  does  not  underftand  ;  and  prudently  conceals 
what  he  is  unable  to  confute.  But  foft !  before  this  important 
Appendix  fhews  itfelf,  we  are  gradually  brought  on  and  prepared 
for  its  Appearance  by  this  Inquifitorlal  Sentence,  which  concludes 
his  Examination.  "  Whether  you  intend  (fays  he)  to  proceed, 
*'  or  will  fuifer  yourfelf  to  be  wholly  diverted  from  your  Purpofe 
*'  by  Matters  of  another  Kind,  less  suitable  to  your  clerical 
"  Function;  you  bed  know.  But  give  me  leave  to  fay,  Sir,  you 
"  are  a  Debtor  to  the  Public  ;  and  I  hope  that  in  your  next  Volume 
"  YOU  will  make  some  Amends  for  the  Wrong  you  have 
"  done  to  Religion  in  this;  in  which,  inftead  of  placing  Chrif- 
*'  tianity.upon  a  furer  Bottom,  You  have  only  furnished  out 
"  more  Handles  to  Unbelievers — Do  you  think  fuch  an 
"  Image  of  Revelation  as  this  is  likely  to  cure  Unbelievers  of  their 
"  Prejudices,  and  will  not  rather  mlnifter  fre(h  Offence  ?  If  any 
"  thing  hinders  this  EfFeft,  it  mud:   be  the  Absurdity   of  the 

*  See  my  Remarks  on  Several  Occafional  Refleaions,  p.  346,  et  feq. 
t  Nil  tarn  metuens  quam  ne  dubitare  aliqua  de  re  videretur. 

Vol.  VI.  E  e  e  Conceit. 


39+  REMARKS    ON     S  E  V  E  R  A  L. 

"Conceit.  But  Kyouon  of  this.  If  the  Reader  has  a  Mind  to 
•*  lie  another  very  strung  ExAMPf.E  of  the  same  sort  of  Ma- 
'♦  NAGEMENT,  he  m;iy  find  it  in  the  Appendix  *." 

And  in  this  manner  has  every  honeft  Man  been-  treated  before 
me,  whenever  he  (M,  or  did  but  endeavour  to  ferve  Mankind. 
Harvey  himCclf,  who  had  more  and  much  abler  Examiners  of  the 
Ahfurditv  of  hh  Conceit  than  I  have  had  of  mine,  fcaicc  got  l)etter 
off  with  one  JEmtlius  Pur'fanus^  a  Man  of  great  name  in  Italy ^  who 
wrote  a  complete  Refutaiion  (as  he  c;Hled  it)  of  the  Do<ftor's  Argu- 
ments fcr  the  Circulation  of  the  Blood  :  A  Difcovery  which  appears 
to  have  given  tliis  ItrJian  no  lefsDlIiurbance  than  The  Divine  Lega- 
tion has  given  our  Examiner. — *' Quamobrem  nos  aliter  philofophati 
**  et  ratiocinati  de  Harveii  fidentia  (fays  he)  admirati ;  de  clar. 
♦*  Londinenlis' A<:ademiae  confenfu  et  confpiratione  obfl:upefa£li,  &c-. 
"  — Verum  enimvero  colledlo  fpiritu,  mifla  tandem  maximae  novi- 
♦'  tatis  admiratione,  melius  nobis  confulti,  ad  vivum  Harveii  allata 
*'  refecantes,  ut  commenticia  et  fi£la  excogitata  colligentes,  propria 
*■'■  nofl:ra  fententia  permanfimus. — Semper  in  ore  atque  in  animo 
♦'habere  debemus,  ut  homines  nos  efle  meminerimus,  ea  lege 
*'  natos,  ut  expofita  fortunae  telis  omnibus  et  noftra  fit  vita,  &  nof- 
*'  trae  aftioues  cunftac  fub  Cenforibus  femper  extent :  Proindeque 
**■  PERPETUO  PUGNANDUM  SIT  ;  &  nunc  quam  maxime,  quum 
**  pro  aris  et  fo:is  atque  etiam  Larariis  (quippe  de  Corde,  &c.)  for- 

«'  titer  decertandum." Serioufly,  this  was  a  fad  Story.     The 

poor  Gentleman  was  plainly  frighted.  But  ftill  he  laments  like  a 
Gentleman.  Here  are  no  Infinuations  that  Harvey  had  fuffered 
himfelf  to  be  diverted  by  matters  lefsjuttable  to  his  medical  Fun^ion, 
while  he  was  exploring  the  ufe  of  the  -venal  Valves,  Nor  does  he 
take  the  Liberty  to  tell  him,  that  he  ought  to  make  Amends  for  the 
Wrong  he  has  done  to  Phyjtc  ;  though  he  thought  he  had  done  a  great 
deal :  or  that  he  hzdjurnifoed  out  more  handles  for  Empirics  ;  though 
he  tliought  they  had  already  too  many :  But  he  politely  lays  the 

*  Ei;ani.  of  Mr.  irskzonCi  Prop.  p.  132,  133. 

fault 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  395 

fault  upon  the  refllefs  Temper  of  human  Nature  Itfelf :  which  will 
never  fufter  us  to  enjoy  our  old  Opinions  in  Quiet.  But  our  Exa- 
miner is  of  another  Cad.  And  nothing  can  fave  you  harmlcfs, 
when  once  you  have  incurred  the  Danger  of  Offence,  but  the  Ab' 
furdity  of  your  Conceits :  Though  Offence,  that  fatal  Enemy  to  Truth, 
be,  of  all  Conceits,  the  moft  abjurd  whenever  it  is  taken  before  it  be 
given.  It  is  true,  the  good  JEmilius  comes  a  little  to  himfelf,  and 
nearer  to  our  Examiner,  in  the  Language  of  his  Conclufion  -  i  j 
had  recovered  Heart;  his  Victories  had  elated  him  ;  and  tlar.  's 
numerous  Experiments  upon  all  animal  Nature  afforded  hini  : 
happy  an  Occafion  of  Raillery,  as  the  Di/fertnlions  in  T&e  D  v  - 
Legation  have  given  thofe  who  took  them  for  Digrejjions-  *'  Jam 
"  diu  (fays  he)  per  dumeta,  vepres,  fyrtes,  ac  fcopulos,  duxit  nos 
*'  Harveius ;  diuque  in  ejus  vivariis  et  pifcinis  inter  teftudines,  an- 
*'  guillas,  cochleas,  ranas,  bufones,  et  ferpentes,  vngati  lumus  ; 
"  omnia  tamen  evertimus,  ejufque  perverfa  veftigia  cuiida  detcxi- 
*'  mus;  omnia  cum  pulvifculo  everrentes  quam  longiffime  ablcga- 
*'  vimus.  Quae  in  celebrium  antiquorum  recentiorumqiie  omnium  ab 
*'  Harveio  immerito  notatorum,  defenfionem  dlda  funto.  Heic — 
"  redeamus ;  ut  quie  jam  reprobata  et  ablegata  funt,  ratione,  fenlu, 
"  AUTOPSIA,  experimentis,  in  veritatis  gratiam  fortius  obftringan- 
««  tur — prasdiclse  opinionis  omnia  deftruendo,  et  inter feje  pugnanlia 
"  ulterius  oftendendo,"  &:c.  &c.  And  in  the  fame  Strain,  our 
Examiner.  Who  aflures  his  Reader,  that,  if  any  thing  can  hinder 
the  ill  Effe6ts  which  my  Interpretation  oi  the  Command  to  Abraham 
muft  have  upon  Religion,  it  will  be  his  expofing  the  Abfurdity  of 
the  Conceit.  This  is  confidently  faid.  But,  what  then  ?  He  can 
prove  it.  So  it  is  to  be  hoped.  If  not — However  let  us  firftgive 
him  a  fair  hearing. 

•'  I  nunc,  et  verbis  virtutem  illude  fuperbis." 

E  e  e  2  II.  rie 


396     REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

II. 

He  begins  with  telling  me,  "  that  my  Account  of  the  Command 
*•  10 /Ibrahar.i  to  oftcr  up  his  Son  IJlwc,  has  no  Foundation  in  Truth  ; 
«'  and  that  in  attempting  to  remove  Objeftions,  very  well  guarded 
«'  againft  by  the  common  Interpretation,  I  have  raifed  new  ones 
««  not  to  be  anfvvered  upon  mine.  And  of  this  ffays  he)  let  the 
•' Reader  judge  *." — Agreed — "  Your  Pofition  then  (continues  he) 
*♦  is  this  :  That  when  God  fays  to  Abraliam,  Take  thou  thy  Son,  thy 
"  only  Son  Ifaac,  &c.  the  Command  is  merely  an  Information  by  Ac- 
*'  tion  inflead  of  Words ^  of  the  great  Sacrifice  of  the  Redemption  of 
*'  Mankind^  given  at  the  rcqueji  c/'Abraham  ;  ^vho  longed^  impatient- 
*'  ly,  to  fee  Chrift's  Day.  The  Foundation  of  your  Thefis  you  lay 
"  in  that  Scripture  of  St.  John  {c.  vili.  56.)  where  Jefus  fays  to  the 
»'  unbelieving  Jews,  Your  Father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  fee  my  Day, 
"  and  he  faw  it  and  was  glad,  p.  572.  As  this  Text  Is  your  Cor- 
•'  ner-ftone,  your  Interpretation  ought  to  be  very  ftrongly  fupport- 
**  ed  t."  Well,  as  he  doubts  its  Strength,  and  loves  the  folid  But- 
trefsof  an  Authority,  let  him  even  take  before  we  go  any  further, 
this  old  feafoned  one  from  the  famous  Hammond;  who  when  he  had 
tran dated  rr/aKKiua-ctjc  'Iva  j'lJ"^  7-r)v  vi^epav  t5j\  If^riv,  by — Was  exceeding 
glad  THAT  HE  MIGHT  SEE  my  Day,  proceeds  to  paraphrafe  the  Text 
in  the  following  Words,  which  our  Pharlfaical  Examiner  may  very 
naturally  confider  as  addrelTed  to  himfelf.  And  becaufe  you  talkfo 
much  of  h^K  Mi  AM,  Iivillnowfay  of  him  that  he,  having  received 
the  Promife  of  the  Meffiah,  Gen.  xi.  35.  did  thereupon  vehe- 
mently and  with  great  Pleafure  and  Exiliency  of  Mind  desIre 
TO  Lo.K  nearer  INTO  IT,  to  fee  my  coming  into  the  World,  and  a 
Revelation  of  it  was  made  unto  him,  and  in  it  of  the  State  of 
the  Gofpel,  and  he  was  heartily  joyed  at  it  I.     However,  the  force  of 

*  ConHderations  on  the  Command  to  Abraham  to  offer  up  Ifaac,  p.  137,  138. 

+  Ibid.  p.  138. 

X  Paraph,  on  the  New  Teflament,  in  loc. 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS. 


397 


our  Examiner's  concluding  Remark  will  be  fccn  when  he  comes 
to  give  us  the  Reafon  of  it  in  it's  place.  In  the  mean  time,  let  me 
obferve,  that,  if  he  will  needs  make  this  Text  my  Conier-JIone,  he 
fhould  have  fhewn  it  fairly  as  it  was  laid  in  the  Divine  Legation  ; 
and  not  have  taken  it  out  of  its  Cement,  to  make  it  fit  for  nothing 
but  the  blind  Corner  of  an  incoherent  Pamphlet.  But  it  was  not 
for  the  Credit  of  his  Examination,  to  acquaint  the  Reader  that  my 
Obfervations  on  the  Text  of  St.  yohn  were  introduced  in  this 
Manner.  Jfwe  conjider  Abraham's  perjonal  CharaSier,  together  with 
the  Choice  made  of  him  for  the  Head  and  Origin  of  that  People^  -which 
God  'would  make  holy  andfeparate  to  himfef,  from  whence  was  to  arife 
the  Redeemer  of  Mankind,  the  ultimate  end  of  that  Separation,  we 
cannot  hut  conclude  it  probable  that  the  Kno%vledge  of  this  Redeemer 
would  be  revealed  to-  him.  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  the  thing 
•which  I  do  ?  fvys  God,  in  a  Matter  that  much  lefs  concerned  the 
Father  of  the  Faithful.  And  here  in  the  Words  o/"  Jefus,  Abraham 
rejoiced,  ^c.  we  have  this  probable  Fact  made  certain^,  &c. 
And  then  I  went  on  to  prove,  that  by  the  Word  Day,  in  the  Text, 
was  meant  the  great  Sacrifice  of  Chnf — But  let  us  take  it  as  it  lies 
in  our  Confiderer.  "  You  fay  then  (continues  he,  addreffing  him- 
♦'  felf  to  the  Author  of  The  Divine  Legation)  that  by  the  Word  Day 
"is  meant  the  great  Sacrifice  (?/"  Chrifl ;  which  is  thus  proved  : 
*'  When  the  figurative  Word  Day  is  ufcd  not  to  exprefs  in  general  the 
"  Period  of  any  one's  Exifience,  but  to  denote  bis  peculiar  Office  and 
*'  Employment  ;  //  tnufi  iieedsfignify,.  that  very  Circumfiance  cf  his 
*'  Life,  which  is  the  CharaSie^-fiick  of  fuch  Office  and  Employment. 
*'  But  Jefus  is  here  fpeaking  of  his  peculiar  Office  and  Employment, 
«'  i.  e.  his  Ofiice  of  Redeew.er.  Therefore,  by  the  Word  Day  vitijl 
*'  needs  be  meant  that  chara^erifiic  Circumfiance  of  his  Life.  But  that 
*'  Circumfiance  was  laying  it  down  for  the  Redemption  of  Mankind. 
"  Confequently,  by  the  Word  Day  is  meant  the  great  Sacrifice  of 

*  bi-v.  Leg.  Vol.  11.  Ed.  2.  [which  is  that  from  whence  I  make  all  the  following 
Qtiotations ;  not  having  the  firft  Edition  by  mej  p.  564.  [See  Vol.  III.  p.  371.  of  this 
Edition.] 

"  Chrifl,"- 


^^S  REMARKS    OX    SEVERAL 

»'  Chilli,"  p.  593  *.  This  is  indeed  my  Argument,  fairly  dated. 
And  to  that  lie  replies.  *'  Really,  Sir,  I  fee  no  manner  of  Confe- 
"  quence  in  this  reafouing.  That  C/jri^'s  Day  hath  reference  to 
*'  his  Office  as  Redeemer,  I  grant.  The  Day  of  Chnjl  denotes  the 
«'  Time  when  C/jri/l  ftiould  come,  i.e.  when  he  (hould  come  who 
'«  was  to  be  fuch  by  Office  and  Employment.  But  why  it  mufl 
"  import  ^il/o  that  when  Cbri/I  came  he  fhould  be  offered  up  as  a 
"  Sacrifice,  I  do  not  in  the  leafl:  apprehend  :  Becaufe  I  can  very 
"  eaiily  uuderiland,  that  Abriiham  might  have  been  informed  that 
*'■  Chrlji  was  to  come,  without  being  informed  that  he  was  to  lay 
*♦  down  his  Life  as  a  Sacrifice,  \i  Abraham  faw  that  a  Time  would 
*'  come  when  one  of  his  Seed  fhould  take  away  the  Curfe,  he  faw 
*'  ChriJTs  Day.  And  this  I  fay  he  might  fee,  whether  he  faw  by 
•'  what  A<£t  the  Curfe  was  taken  away  or  not  -[■." 

The  Reader  fees  here,  that,  at  firfV  Sight,  he  would  feem  to  grant 
my  Premifes. — "  That  ChriJCs  Day  (fays  he)  hath  reference  to  the 
*'  OfHce  as  Redeemer,  I  grant."  Yet  the  very  next  Words  which 
he  ufcs  to  explain  it  contradid  it :  The  Day  of  Chrifl:  denotes  the 
Time  'when  Q\\x\'^  pmld  come.  All  the  Senfe  therefore,  I  can 
■make  of  the  Conceflion,  when  joined  to  the  Explanation  of  it, 
amounts  to  this — "  Chri/Ts  Day  has  reference  to  his  Office  :  No, 
**  not  to  his  Office,  but  to  his  Time."  Rut  he  may  grow  clearer 
as  he  runs.  "  But  why  it  muft  import  also  that  when  Cbri/l  came 
"  he  (hould  be  offered  up  as  a  Sacrifice,  I  do  not  in  the  leaft  appre- 
*'  hend."  Nor  I,  neither.  Had  1  faid,  that  the  Word  Day  in  the 
Text,  imported  the  Time,  I  could  have  as  little  apprehended  as  he 
does,  how  that  which  imports  Time,  imports  also  the  thing  done  in 
Time.  Let  him  take  this  Nonfenfe,  therefore,  to  himfelf.  I  ar- 
gued in  a  plain  Manner,  thus — When  the  Word  Day  is  ufed  to 
exprefs,  in  general,  the  Period  of  any  one's  Exiflience,  then  it  de- 
notes Time ;  when  to  exprefs  his  peculiar  Office  and  Employment, 
.then  it  denotes,  not  the  Time,  but  that  Circumftance  of  Life  cha- 

*  Confiderations,  p.  138,  139.  f  P,  139. 

raileriftic 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  399 

rafterlftic  of  fiich  Office  and  Employment.  Day,  in  the  Text,  is 
uied  to  exprefs  ChriJTs  peculiar  Office  and  Employment.  There- 
fore ■ — But  what  follows  is  ftill  better.  His  want  of  Apprehcn- 
fion,  it  fecms,  is  founded  in  this,  "  That  he  can  eafily  under- 
*' (land,  th^t  Abraham  might  have  been  informed  that  Chrijl  was 
**  to  come  ;  without  being  informed  that  he  was  to  lay  down  his 
**  Life  as  a  Sacrifice."  Yes,  and  fo  could  I  likevvife  ;  or  I  had 
never  been  at  the  pains  of  making  the  Criticifm  on  the  Word  Day  : 
Which  takes  all  its  Force  from  this  very  Truth,  that  Abraham 
might  have  been  informed  of  one,  without  the  other.  And,  there- 
fore, to  prove  he  was  informed  oi  that  other,  I  produced  the  Text 
in  Queftion,  which  afforded  the  Occafion  of  the  Criticifm.  He 
goes  on — "  M  Abraham  faw,  that  a  Time  would  come  when  one 
"  of  his  Seed  fhould  take  away  the  Curfe,  he  faw  Chrijl' s  Day." 
Without  doubt  he  did.  Becaufe  it  is  agreed  that  Day  may  fignify 
either  l"itne,  or  Circumjlance  of  ASi'wn.  But  what  is  this  to  the 
purpofe  ?  The  Queftion  is  not  whether  the  Word  may  not,  inde- 
finitely, fignify  T/>?zt' ;  but  whether  it.  fignifies  T//w^  in  this  Text. 
I  have  fhewn  it  does  not.  And  what  has  he  faid  to  prove  it  does  ? 
Why  that  it  may  do  fo,  in  another  Place.  His  whole  Anfvver, 
therefore,  to  the  Argument,  we  fee,  proceeds  on  an  intirc  Inap- 
prehenfion  of  the  very  Drift  and  Purpofe  of  it. 

III. 

I  had  faid,  That  not  only  the  Matter,  but  the  Manner,  llkewife, 
of  this  great  Revelation,  is  delivered  in  the  Text. Abraham  re- 
joiced to  SEE  my  Day,  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.  \'va.  lAH  ty.v 
ilJpxv  Tr>  l[/,^v,  ii,  EIAE.  tVhich  evidently Jhews  it  to  have  been  made, 
not  by  Relation  in  JVords,  but  by  Representation  in  Adiion.  That 

»  But  the  Reader  may  fee  this  Truth  very  well  inforced,  from  Obfcrvations  on  the 
Context,  by  a  learned  and  fenfible  Writer,  in  a  Pamphlet  figned  L.  U.  P.  and  intituled, 
A  Letter  to  the  Author  of  a  late  Epjftolary  DilTtrtation,  addreficd  to  Mr.  Warburton, 
p.  381041. 


400  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

the  Verb  uSu>  is  frequently  ufedy  in  the  New  Tejlament,  in  its  proper 
Signification,  to  fee  fenfibly.  But  whether  literally  or  figuratively  it 
always  denotes  a  full  Intuition.  That  the  Exprefion  was  as  frong  in 
ihe  Syrian  Language,  ufed  by  Jefiis,  as   here,  in  the  Greek  of  his 

Hi/lorian  ;  which  appears  from  the  Reply  the  Jews  made  to  him. 

Thou  art  not  yet  Fifty  Years  old,  and  haft  thou  seen  Abraham  ? 
Plainly  intimating,  that  they  tmder/lood  the  Jferiion,  of  Abraham's 
ieeiiig  Chrift's  Day,  to  be  a  real  beholding  him  in  Perfon.  That  we 
arc  therefore  to  conclude,  from  the  Words  of  the  Text,  that  the  Re- 
demption of  Mankind  zvas  not  only  revealed  to  Abraham,  but  was  re- 
vealed likewife  by  Reprefentation  *.  This  Argument  our  punftual 
Examiner  reprefents  in  the  following  Manner.  "  You  are  not  more 
*'  fuccefsful  in  your  next  Point,  Abraham  rejoiced  to  fee  my  Day,  and 
*'  he  faw  it  and  was  glad,  'Iva  lAH  t^\  -^[^.epc^v  tjjV  I/^jji/  x,  EIAE. 
*'  This  (fay  you)  evidently  pews  it  [the  Revelation]  to  have  been 
•«'  made  not  by  Relation  in  JVords,  but  by  Reprefntation  in  ASiiony 
"  How  fo  ?  The  Reafon  follows.     The  Verb  iIIm  is  frequently  ufed  in 

-**  the  Ne%v  Tefamcnt  in  its  proper  Signification  to  fee  fenfibly. In 

*'  the  New  Teftament  do  you  fay  ?  Yes,  Sir,  and  in  every  Greek 
■"  Book  you  ever  read  in  your  Life.  What  you  should  have  faid 
"  is,  that  it  is  fo  ufed  here  ;  and  I  fuppofe  you  would  have  faid  fo, 
*'  if  you  had  known  how  to  have  proved  it  f." 

"  The  Reafon  follows"  (fays  he).  Where  ?  In  The  Divine 
Legation  indeed,  but  not  in  his  imperfedt  Quotation  ;  which  breaks 
off  before  he  comes  to  my  Argument.  One  who  knew  him  not  fo 
well  as  I  do,  would  fufpedl  this  was  done  to  ferve  a  Purpofe.  No 
fuch  Matter :  'Twas  all  pure  Innocence.  Pie  miftook  the  Intra- 
duBion  of  my  Argument  for  the  Argument /{/^'//I  The  Argument 
itfelf,  which  he  omits  in  the  Quotation  (and  which  was  all  I 
wanted  for  the  Proof  of  my  Point),  was.  That  the  Verb  i'llu,  whe- 
ther ufed  literally  or  figuratively,  always  denotes  a  full  intuition.  And 
this  Argument,  I  Introduced  in  the  following  Manner,  The  Verb 

*  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  U.  p.  595,  596,     [Vol.  Ill,   p.  388.  Ed.  4to.] 
4  Confiderations,  p.  139,  140. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  401 

ziiu  is  frequently  iifed  in  the  New  Teflamcnt  in  ils  proper  SiguifiLa- 
tion^  to  fee  fetijibly.  Unluckily,  as  we  fay,  he  took  this  for  the 
Argument  itfelf,  and  thus  correds  me  for  It :  "  What  you  should 
*'  have  faid,  is,  that  it  is  fo  ufed  here ;  and  I  fuppofe  you  would 
*' have  fald  fo,  if  you  had  known  how  to  have  proved  it."  See, 
here,  the  true  Origin  both  oi prefcribing  zuA  dl'vining  I  His  Igno- 
rance of  what  I  did  fay,  leads  him  to  tell  me  what  I  fiould  ba-ce. 

faid;  and  to  divine  what  /  would  have  faid.  But,  what  I  faid,  I'll 
ftand  to,  'That  the  Verb  siSu  always  denotes  a  Jull  Intuition.  This, 
was  all  I  wanted  from  the  Text;  and  on  this  Foundation,  I  pro- 
ceeded, in  the  Sequel  of  the  Difcourfe,  to  prove  that  Abraham  J aiv. 

fenfbly.  Therefore,  when  my  Examiner  takes  it  (as  he  does)  for 
granted,  that  becaufe,  in  this  Place,  I  had  not  proved  that  the 
Word  implied  to  fee  fenfbly;  I  had  not  pr^oved  it  at  all;  he  is  ^  fe- 
cond  Time  mlftaken. 

He  goes  on,  '*One  Thing  needs  no  Proof,  which  is,  that,  in 
"  all  Languages,  feeing  and  knowing  are  frequently  ufed  as  equiva- 
"  lent  Terms  *."  As  I  don't  know  what  he  means  by  this  one 
Thing,  I  can  only  requite  him  with  another,  that  needs  as  little; 
which  is,  that,  in  all  Churches,  y^^'/'w^  zwi.  believing  :lxq  frequently 
ifd,  by  Bigots,  as  equivalent  Terms.  Here's  my  Obfervation  for 
his  Obfervation  ;  and,  I  think,  a  good  deal  more  to  the  Purpofe. 

IV. 

But  our  Examiner  will  now  (hew,  that,  feeing  Chrifs  Day,  and 
feeing  the  Promifes  afar  off,  are  one  and  the  fame  Thing.  "  We 
"  have  an  Inftance  (fays  he)  direftly  to  the  Point  in  hand,  Heb. 
*'  xi.  13.  Thefe  all  died  in  Faith,  not  having  received  the  Promifes; 
*'  «XX«  'ziToppccSev  avjccg  lAONTEL,  but  having  SEEN  them  afar  off. 
"  You  will  remember,  Sir,  that  Abraham  ftands  in  this  Catalogue, 
**  amongft  the  reft;  and  the  Apoftle  fays  of  them  all  indilTerently, 

*   Cofid.  p.  140. 

Vol.  VI.  Fff  "that 


402  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

"  that  tl-icy  fnw  thePromifes,  /.  e.  that  Bkjfmg  which  was  the  Sub- 
"  jc<51:  of  thefe  Promlfes.  How  did  they  fee  them  ?  By  Reprefen- 
*•  tatioii,  in  Aiflion  will  you  lay  ?  I  fuppofe  nor.  But  tlie  Apoftie 
"  tells  you  how.  They  faw  them  by  Faith,  a  great  way  off:  And 
•'  why  may  not  this  be  all  that  our  Saviour  intended  ?  What  Dif- 
"  ference,  in  Senfe,  is  there  between  faying,  that  \\q faw  the  Pro- 
♦'  rnlfes  afar  off';  and  that  he  faw  Chrffs  Day  *  .«'" 

*'  We  have  an  Inflance  ffiys  he)  direitly  to  the  Point  in  hand." 
Of  what  ?  Why,  tliat  the  Verb  u^w  fignifies  the  fame  in  this 
Place  of  the  Epillle  to  the  Hebrews  as  in  the  Text  in  queftion. 
Now,  there  it  is  applied  to  Proinfes,  fo  cannot  be  literal :  And  here 
it  Is  applied  to  Day,  and  fo,  very  well,  may.  Yet  this  he  calls 
"  an  inftancedlretflly  to  the  Point  in  Hand." 

"  You  will  remember.  Sir  (fays  he)  that  Abraham  fiands  iiv 
*'  that  Catalogue  amongfl:  the  reft."  And  you  will  remember,  Sir,. 
fay  I,  That  Abraham  /lands  alone  in  tlie  Words  xiifefus.  But  your 
Logic,  I  fuppofe,  concludes  thus  :  \i  Abraham  knew  as  much  as 
the  reft ;  why,  then  the  reft  knew  as  much  as  Abraham.  Other- 
wife  you  would  have  obferved,  that  the  feeing  the  Promifes  afar 
off  related  to  that  Time  of  the  Life  of  each  Patriarch  in  which  he 
performed  the  Aft  of  Faith  there  celebrated.  For  the  Argument 
ftandsthus:  By  Faith,  Abel^  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,  did  fo  and 
fo ;  yet,  as  illuftrious  as  thofe  Ads  of  Faith  were,  they  had  then 
only  feen  the  Promfes  afar  off:  Therefore  you  Chriftians,  &c. 
And  it  is  remarkable  that  the  A6ls  of  Faith,  for  which  Abraham  is 
here  celebrated,  were  prior  in  Time  to  the  Command  to  offer  up  his 
Son.  Now,  after  this,  what  hinders  our  concluding,  from  the 
Words  of  j^f/ziij,  Xhzt  Abraham  had  a  ftill  more  illuftrious  Manifef- 
tation  of  the  Promife  ?  However,  if  I  ftiould  fail  in  reconciling 
J  fits  and  the  Author  of  the  Lpiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  let  the  Reader 
remember,  that  it  is  our  Examiner  who  has  let  them  at  Variance. 
And  he  only  makes  the  Breach  wider,  where  he  tries  to  brhig  them 

*  Confid,  p.  140. 

to 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  403 

to  a  Temper.  «'  The  Apoflle  (Jays  he)  tells  you,  they  faw  the 
"  Piomifes,  by  Faith,  a  great  way  off:  And  why  may  not  this  be 
"all  that  our  Saviour  hitended  ?  What  Difference  in  Sense,  Is 
"  there  between  laying,  that  he  faw  the  Promlfes  afar  o(T,  and, 
"  that  he  fawC6r//?'j-  Day  r"  What  Difference  do  you  aflc?  Why, 
about  as  much  as  between  your  Sight  and  Cblling'worth''s.  Or  as 
iTiUch  as  between  an  Objed  feen,  at  a  Diftance,  through  a  M\^  ; 
and  one,  at  Hand,  in  broad  Day- llglit. 


"  But,  he  c%vns^  that,  if  this  was  all,  perhaps  I  JJoould  tell  /)//;;, 
"  that  It  was  a  very  flrange  Anfwer  of  the  Jews,  thou  art  not  yet 
*''■  fifty  Tears  oUi,  and  hoji  thou  feen  Abraham*."  He  is  very  right. 
He  might  be  fure  I  would.  In  anfwer  therefore  to  this  Difficul- 
ty, he  goes  on  and  fays,  '*  No  doubt.  Sir,  the  J'^'ios  anfwer  our 
"  Saviour,  as  if  he  had  faid,  that  Abraham  and  He  were  Contempo- 
"  varies ;  In  which,  they  anfwered  very  fooliffily,  as  they  did  on 
"  many  other  Occafions  ;  and  the  Anfwer  will  as  little  agree  witli 
"  your  Interpretation  as  it  does  with  mine.  For  does  your  Inter- 
"  pretatlon  fuppofe  ihzX.  Abraham  faw  Cbrijl  in  Perfon  ?  No;  you 
*'  lay  It  was  by  Reprefentatlon  only  -j--" 

"  The  feists  anfwer  our  Saviour  as  if  he  had  faid,  that  Abrahnm 
*'  and  he  were  Contemporaries."  Do  they  fo  ?  Wiiy  then,  'tis 
plain,  the  Exprejion  was  as  f  rang  in  the  Syv'un  Language,  i fed  by 
Jefiis,  as  in  the  Greek  of  his  Hifof-ian,  which  was  all  I  aimed  to 
prove  by  it.  But  "  in  this  (fays  he)  they  anfwered  very  fooliHily." 
What  then?  Did  I  quote  them  for  their  Wifdom  ?  A  little  Com- 
vion-fen[e  was  all  I  wanted  of  them  :  And  tliat,  'tis  plain,  they 
had.  For  the  Folly  oi  their  Anfwer  arlfes  from  it.  They  heard 
Jfjus  ufe  a  Word  in  their  vulgar  Idiom,  which  iignified  to  fee  cor- 
poreally ;  and  Common- fenfe  led  them  to  conclude  he  ufed  it  in  the 
vulgar   Meaning.     In   this   they   were   not   millakeii.      But,  from 

*   Confid.   p.  140.  t  Ibid.  p.  14c,  141, 

F  f  f  2  thence. 


^04         REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

thence,  they  inferred,  that  he  meant  it  in  the  Senfe  oi  feeing  per- 
Jonally  ;  and  in  this,  they  were.  And  now  let  the  Reader  judge 
whether  the  Folly  of  their  A'[fiver  fliews  the  Folly  of  my  Argu- 
ment, or  of  my  Examiner's.  Nay  further,  he  tells  us,  they  an- 
fwered  *'  as  foollfhly  on  many  other  Occaficns."  They  did  fo;  and 
I  will  remind  him  of  one.  Jefus  fays  to  Nicodemus,  Except  a  Man 
te  born  again^  he  cannot  fee  the  Kingdom  of  Gcd*,  &c.  Suppole 
now,  from  thefe  Words,  I  fliould  attempt  to  prove  that  Regenera- 
tion and  Divine  Grace  were  Realities,  and  not  mere  Metaphors. 
For  that  Jefus,  in  declaring  the  Neceffity  of  them,  ufed  fuch  ftroi]g 
Expreflions  that  Nicodernus  underftood  him  to  mean  the  being  phy- 
sically bcrn  again,  and  entering  the  fecond  Time  into  the  Womb. 
Would  it  be  fufficient,  let  me  afk  my  Examiner,  to  reply  in  this 
manner,  "  No  doubt.  Sir,  Nicodernus  anfwered  our  Saviour  as  if  he 
"  had  fliid,  that  a  Follower  of  the  Gofpel  mufi:  e?iter  a  fecond  Time 
"  into  his  Mother  s  Womb  and  be  born :  in  which  he  anfwered  very 
"  foolidily  ;  and  the  Anfwer  will  as  little  agree  with  your  Inter- 
"  ^retation  as  it  does  with  mine.  For  does  your  Interpretation  fup- 
"  pofe  he  fliould  fo  enter  ?  No  ;  but  that  he  fhould  be  born  of 
"  Water  and  of  the  Spirit."'  Would  this,  1  fay,  be  deemed,  by 
our  Examiner,  .a  fufficient  Anfwer?  When  he  has  refolved  me 
this,  I  fliall,  perhaps,  have  fomething  farther  to  fay  to  him.  In 
the  mean  time  I  go  on.  And,  in  returning  him  his  lafl  Words  re- 
flored  to  their  Subjeft,  help  him  forward  in  the  Solution,  of  what 
I  expecl  from  him. — "  The  Anfwer  (fays  he)  will  as  little  agree 
"  with  your  Interpretation  as  it  does  with  mine.  For  does  your 
"  Interpretation  fuppofe  that  Abraham  faw  Chrifl  in  Perfon  ?  No  ; 
"  you  fay,  it  was  by  Reprcfentation  only."'  Very  well.  Let  me 
a(k  then,  in  the  firft  Place,  whether  he  fuppofes  what  I  faid  on  this 
Occafion,  was  to  prove  that  Abraham  faw  Chrifl  from  the  reverend 
Authority  of  his  Jew^  Adverfaries;  or  to  prove  that  the  Verb  i'l^ca 
fignified  lofee  literally,  from  their  miftaken  Anfwer  r  He  thought 
me  here,  it  fecms,  in  the  way  of  thofe  Writers,   who  are  quoting 

*  St.  Johniii.   3. 

Authorities, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  405 

Authorities,  wlieii  they  fliould  be  giving  jlrgtiments.  Hence,  he 
calls  tlic  Ai)i\ver  the  Jews  here  g:»ve,  ^  fool JJi  one:  As  if  I  flood 
Sponfoi"  for  its  Orthodoxy. 

But  our  Examiner  is  ftill  farther  mlllaken.  Tlic  Point  I  was 
upon,  In  fupport  of  which  I  urged  the  Anfwer  of  tlic  j''.U'j,  was 
not  the  feeing  //j/>,  or  that  Per/on  :  But  the  feeing  corporeally,  and 
not  menially.  Now,  if  the  Jews  underftood  Jcfus,  as  faying  that 
Abraham  fliw  corporeally,  I  concluded,  that  the  Expreflion,  ulcd  by 
Jefus,  had  that  Import ;  And  this  was  all  I  was  concerned  to  prove. 
Difference,  therefore,  between  their  Anfwer  as  I  quoted  it,  and  my 
Interpretation,  there  was  none.  Tiieir  Anfwer  Implied  that  Abra- 
ham was  faid  to  fee  corporeally  ;  and  my  Interpretation  fuppofes 
that  the  Words  ufed  had. that  Import.  But  to  make  a  DiftinvStioii 
where  there  was  no  Ditference,  feeing  in  Perfon,  and  feeing  by  Re~ 
prefentation,  are  brought  In,  Into  a  Queftlon,  where  they  have  no- 
thing to  do. 

Vf. 

Our  Examiner,  after  all  thefe  Feats,  now  (lops  and  looks  about 
him ;  as  waiting  modeftly  for  his  Reader's  Approbation  and  Ap- 
plaufe  ;  and  to  (hew  how  well  he  deferves  it,  purpofes,  out  of  pure 
Love  of  Juftice,  to  refume  his  Talk,  and  kill  me  over  again.  "  To 
"  do  you  ful-l  Juftice  (fnyi  he)  I  will  take  in  one  Obfervation  more, 
*'  by  which,  you  have  endeavoured  to  flrengthen  ^ourfelf,  and 
"  which  relates  to  the  former  Part  of  the  Text.  That  Abraham 
'•  had  a  general  Promlfe,  that  in  him  all  the  Families  of  the  Earth 
'■'■  fjoiild  Be  bleffed,  which  general  Promlfe  comprehends  or  contains 
"  the  Promlfe  of  the  Redemption,  Is  agreed  between  us.  Au<\  this 
'•  general  Promlfe,  I  fuppofe,  might  be  the  SubjeiS  of  the  Pa- 
"  triarch's  Joy.  You  (In  Favour  of  your  Flypothefis)  fuppofe,  that, 
"  fubfequent  to  this  general  Promlfe,  Abraham  had,  upon  his  ear- 
*'  neft  Kequeft,  fome  fpeclal  Promlfe  made  to  Iilm  of  a  more  dlf- 
*'  tlndl  Communication   of  the  Manner  how,  and  tiie  Means  by 

"  which 


4:6  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

<»  which  this  great  Work  fliould  be  accomplKhed  ;  and  that  this 
*«  Ipccial  Promife  was  the  Matter  of  his  rejoicing.  This  hJiJlory  of 
"  Abraham  (fay  you)  had  plainly  three  dijlincl  Periods.  The  firjl 
*'  contains  God^s  Promife  to  grant  his  Requef,  when  Abraham  rejoiced 
*'  that  he  should  see. — Within  the  Second,  was  thz  Delivery  of  the 
**  Command  to  facrifice  his  Sou. — And  Abraham's  Obedience,  through 
*'  ivhich  he  saw  Chriil's  Day  and  was  glad,  includes  the  third.  The 
*'  Promife,  which  you  fay  God  made  to  Abraham  to  grant  his  Re- 
'^*  queft,  cannot  be  the  general  Promife,  that  he  fhould  be  a  Blefling 
*'  to  all  Nations ;  for  this  was  given  upon  his  firfl:  Vocation  with- 
'^'  out  his  Requeft.  Therefore  it  mufl:  be  a  fpecial  fubfequent  Pro- 
*'  mife.  But  there  is  not  one  Word  in  the  Hiftory  of  the  Old  Tef- 
**  tament  to  juftify  this  three-fold  Diftincllon  ;  as  j'^ou  confefs  your- 
*'  felf.  For  you  fay  that  Mofes^s  Hlftory  begins  with  the  fecond 
*■'  Period  ;  and  that  the  firft  was  wifely  omitted  by  the  Hlftorian. 
"  If  there  never  was  any  fuch  Period,  never  any  fuch  fpecial  Pro- 
*'  mife  requefted  or  made  ;  It  was  very  honeft  in  the  Hlftorian  to 
*'  fay  nothing  about  It  :  And  you  will  be  the  wise  Man,  who 

"  CAN  SEE  WHAT  IS  NOT  TO  BE  FOUND  *." 

*' The  general  Promife  made  to  Abraham,  that  In  \\\vs\  all  the 
"  Families  of  the  Rarth  Jloould  be  blejfed.  It  Is  agreed  (he  tells  us  J 
*'  comprehends  the  Promife  of  the  Bedemptlon  :  And  this  general 
-"Promife,  he  fuppofes,  might  be  the  Subject:  of  the  Patriarch's 
"  J^y'"  riientloned  by  "Jefus,  in  the  Text  In  queftlon.  Which 
Obfervatlon,  !ie  Is  fo  fond  of,  that  he  repeats  it  again  in  p.  145. 
*'  Abraham,  feeing  a  Redemption  to  come  through  his  Seed,  re- 
"  joiCED  at  the  Blefling."  But  now.  If  Abraham  was  Ignorant 
that  \S\\i  general  P/-o;«(/^  comprehended  in  it  the  Promife  of  Redemp- 
tion, how  could  that  Redemption  be  the  fubjeSl  of  the  Patriarch's 
Joy  ?  That  he  was  ignorant,  I  prove  from  the  beft  Authority 
with  our  Examiner;  I  mean  his  own.     This  general  Promife,  as  a 

*  Conful.  p,  i4t,   142. 

Prophefy 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  407 
Prophefy  of  the  Meffiah  or  Redeemer,  is  ngrced,  on  all  hands,  to 
be  obfcure.  Now  our  Examiner  has  laid  it  down  as  a  Maxim  that 
*•  fo  far  as  Prophefy  is  obfcure  (nnd  it  is  in  the  Nature  of  Prophefy  to 
"  be  obfcure  more  or  Icfs).  fo  far  it  was  obfcure  to  the  Prophets 
"  themfelves  *'."  This,  ln>  Satisfaftion  to  himfclf.  But  in  Satis- 
fadion  to  his  Reader,  I  go  further  ;  and  (hew,  that  the  general 
Promife,  mentioned  by  Mofes,  could  not  be  the  Occafion  of  the 
Patriarch's  Joy,  mentioned  by  Jcfus ;  even  on  our  Examiner's  own 
contradictory  Conception  of  Things.  I  will  fuppofc,  for  once,  that 
Abraham  did  underfland,  that,  in  tlie  general  Protnife,  was  con- 
tained a  Promife  of  Redemption.  But  will  he  iay  tlic  Time,  too,  was 
contained  in  it  ?  Now  he  owns,  that  the  Occafion  of  Abraham^ s 
Joy  was  the  Knowledge  of  the  Time  when  Chrif  (hould  come. 
"  The  Day  of  Chnfl  ffays  he)  denotes  the  Time  when  Chrijl  fliould 
"  come  f."  I  conclude,  therefore,  from  his  own  Words,  that 
*'  the  Subjed:  of  the  Patriarch's  Joy  could  not  be  this  general 
"  Promife."  And,  by  this  Conclufion,  expofe  the  Injuflice  of  his- 
following  Remark,  that  it  "  was  in  favour  of  my  Hypothesig- 
"  that  I  fuppofcd  there  was  a  y^^fcw/ Promife  made  to  Abraham  at 
"  his  earnefi:  Requeft,  fubfequcnt  to  the  general  one."  If  it  was 
in  favour  of  any  thing  but  Truth,  it  was  in  favour  of  Commo7i-feuf\ 
which  always  leads  to  it.  And  which  pointed  out  to  me  the  three 
Periods  1  difcovered  in  this  fpecial  Promife.  "  But  (he  ielh  me) 
"  there  is  not  one  Word,  in  the  Hiflory  of  the  Old  Tcftamcnt,  to 
♦'juftify  this  threefold  Diftinclion."  And  that  I  myfclf  confess 
as  much.  It  is  true,  that  I  confefs  not  to  find  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment  what  is  not  there.  And  had  the  like  Modefly  been  in  him, 
he  would  have  been  content  to  have  found  a  future  State  in  the 
New  Teftament  only.  But  where  is  it,  I  would,  afk,  that,  "  I 
*♦  confefs  there  is  not  one  Word,  in  the  Hlflory  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
''  meut,  to  juftify  this  three-fold  Diftindion  r"     For  this  is  News. 

•*  Confid.p.  156.  t  Ibid.  p.  139. 


+o8  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

So  far  w-15  I  from  any  Thoughts  of  fuch  Confefllon,  that  I  gave 
a  lar^e  critical  Epitome  *  of  Ahrabmri's  whole  Hiftory,  to  fliew 
ihtM\x.juJiiJiedthis  threefold  DifinSlion,  in  every  part  of  it.  But 
liis  manner  of  proving  my  ConpJJhn,  will  clearly  convidt  him  of 
the  Falfhood  of  his  Charge.  For,  inftead  of  doing  it  from  my  own 
Words,  he  will  argue  nie  into  it  from  h'n  own  Inferences.  "  You 
♦'  coufefs  it  (fays  he)  for  you  fay,  that  Mofes's  Hiftory  begins  with 
"  the  fccond  Period,  and  that  the  firft  was  wifely  omitted  by  the 
♦»  Hiftorian."  See,  here,  the  Perverfity  of  our  Examiner  !  When 
the  Point  is  a  Queflion  of  Right,  he  gives  his  Reader  an  Autho- 
rity :  When  a  Queflion  of  FaSl,  a  Reafon.  But  what  fort  of  Rea- 
Iba  let  us  now  fee,  by  applying  it  to  a  parallel  Cafe.  I  will  fuppofe 
him  to  tell  me,  (for,  after  this,  he  may  tell  me  any  thing)  "  that 
*'  1  myfelf  confefs  there  is  not  one  Word  in  the  Iliad  of  Horner^ 
"  to  juflify  the  being  three  Periods  in  the  Deftruclion  of  Troy, 
"  (the  firil:  the  Robbery  of  Helen  ;  the  'fecond,  the  Combats  before 
*'  the  Town  ;  and  the  third,  the  ftorming  of  it  by  the  Greeks) 
"  for  that  1  fay,  that  Homer's  Poem  begins  at  the  fecond  Period  ; 
*'  wifely  omitting  the  firfl  and  laft."  Now  will  any  one  conclude, 
from  this  Rea/o?i,  that  I  had  made  thai  ConfeJJion  ? — He  is  fo  fiir 
from  owning  that  I  had  given  any  Reafons  (though  I  had  given 
many)  of  Mofess  Wifdom  in  omitting  the  mention  of  the  firft  Pe- 
riod, that  his  following  Words,  if  they  have  any  Meaning,  infinuate 
1  had  given  none.  "  If  there  never  was  any  fuch  Period;  it  was 
•'  very  honeft  in  the  Hiftorian  to  fay  nothing  about  it."  The  Rea- 
der fees,  I  queflion  his  having  a  Meaning',  and  my  Reafon  is,  be- 
caufe,  I  find,  it  was  to  introduce  a  Piece  of  Wit.  For,  as  the 
Town-Poet  frequently  compounds  for  the  Rhime,  with  one  half 
of  his  Diftich  ;  fo  the  Town-profe-Man  for  the  TVit,  with  one  half  of 
his  Sentence. — "  And  you  (f.ys  he)-w'\[\  be  the  wise  Man  who  can 
"  fee  what  is  not  to  be  found."  Now  the  two  Members  of  his 
Wit  do  not  agree. — "  It  was  very  honeft  in  the  Hillorian — and  you 

■'    From  p.  598,  to  603,  of  The  Divbic  Legation,  Vol.  II.  [Vol.  III.  378— 383,  ed.  410.] 

"  will 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  409 

*'  will  be  the  wife  Man." — The  carelefs  Reader  may  think  he  only 
meant,  here,  to  call  me  Fool.  But,  indeed,  it  was  my  Knavery 
that  was  to  ftand  in  Oppofition  to  Mofes's  Hone/ly.  This,  there- 
fore, is  to  be  confidered  as  one  of  thofe  dijgutfed  Sentences,  which  the 
Critics  fo  much  admire,  in  the  Works  of  the  greatefl  Writers. 
However  I  here  call  upon  him  firfl:  to  prove  that  I  did  confcfs  what 
he  charges  upon  me,  in  Pain  of  being  deemed  a  falfe  Accufer.— . 
And  this  for  the  JfJE^C  C3I^€. 

VII. 

He  proceeds — "  But  what  is  wanting  in  Hijlory,  It  feems,  Cri- 
*«  ticifm  is  to  fupply.  The  Words  in  the  Original  are,  riyaXXicio-ccjo 
**  INA  I  AH  ;  i.  e.  (fay  you)  be  rejoiced  that  he  might  see;  ivhicb 
*'  implies  that  the  Period  of  this  Joy  was  in  the  Space  between  the 
*'  Proniife  that  the  Favour  fiould  be  conferred,  andthe  adlual  conferring 
"  //,  in  the  Delivery  of  the  Commafid. — The  Englhh  Phrafe,  to  fee,  is 
"  equivocal;  and  means  either  the  prefent  Time,  that  he  did  then  fce\  or  the 
*^  future,  that  he  f mild  fee.  But  the  Original  'Ivct.  i'<J>i  has  only  the  latter 
*'  Senfe  :  fo  that  the  Text  plainly  di/lingufjes  two  different  Periods  of 
'■'■Joy:  thefirjl,  ijohen  it  was  pvomifed  he  fiould fee ;  the  fccond,  when 
"  he  actually  f aw :  And  it  is  to  be  obfervcd,  that  in  the  exa6i  Ufe  of 
*'  the  Word,  uyuXKuxo^xi  fgnifies  that  tumultuous  P  leaf  are  which 
*'  the  certain  ExpeBation  of  an  approaching  Blejfvig,  underfood  only 
*'  in  the  grofs,  occafwns ',  and  x'^^p"  '^^^^  ^^^^^  and  fettled  Joy,  that 
«'  arifesfrom  our  Knowledge  in  the  PoffeJJion  of  it.  Where  are  your 
*'  Authorities  for  all  this  ?  You  produce  none.  Wherever  you  had 
"  your  Greek,  I  am  very  fure  you  had  it  not  from  the  New  Tejla- 
**  menty  where  thefe  Words  are  ufed  indifcriminately  *." — "  Where 
♦'  are  your  Authorities  ?  You  produce  none."  No.  I  wrote  to 
thofe  who  underftood  their  Grammar,  and  read  Greek :  And  fuch 

•*  Confid.  p.  142,  143, 

Vol.  VI.  G  g  g  want 


410  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

want  none  in  a  Cafe  fo  clear  and  notorious.  But  this  is  to  infi- 
nuatc,  that  I  had  none  to  produce.  He  dare  not,  indeed,  fay  fo.. 
And  in  this  I  commend  his  Prudence,  as  he  knew  nothing  of  the 
Matter.  However,  in  this,  he  is  pofitive,  that  "  wherever  I  had 
♦*  my  Greek,  1  had  it  not  from  the  New  Tejlament."  The  Gentle- 
man is  hard  to  pleafe  :  Here  he  is  offended  that  1  had  it  not  ;  and, 
before,  that  I  had  it  from  the  New  Tejiament.  Here  1  impofc  upon 
him;  There  I  trifled  with  him.  But,  in  all  this  Diverfity  of  Ac- 
ceptance, 'tis  ftill  the  fame  Spirit ;  of  an  Anfwerer  by  ProfeJJion. 

I  had  faid,  the  two  Greek  Words,  in  their  exact  Ufe,  fignify  fo  and 
fo.  Which  furely  implied  an  Acknowledgment,  that  this  Exadt- 
nefs  was  not,  ahjcays^  kept  up  to  ;  efpecially  by  the  Writers  of  the 
New  Tejiament ;  who,  whatever  fome  may  have  dream'd,  did  not 
pique  themfelves  upon  a  claffical  Elegance.  Now,  this  Implica- 
tion, our  Examiner  takes  upon  him  to  confirm,  but  by  way  of 
Confutation.  "  In  the  New  Tejiament  (Jays  he)  thefe  Words  are  ufed 
**  indlfcriminately."  I  had  plainly  infinuated  the  fame ;  and  he 
had  better  have  let  it  reft  on  my  Acknowledgment :  For  the  In- 
ftances  he  brings,  to  prove  the  Words  ujed  indijcriminately  in  the 
New  Teftament,  are  even  enough  to  perfuade  the  Reader  that  they 
are  not.  His  firft  Inftance  is,  i  Fet.  iv.  13.  "  Rejoice  \-xa.lfi\i\ 
"  inajmiich  as  ye  are  Partakers  o/'Chrift's  Sufferings  ;  that  zvhen^  his 
"  Glory  Jjall  be  revealed  [^/apijre  a^a'K'ktu^ivoi]  ye  may  be  glad  with 
"  exceeding  Joy.  See  you  not  here  (Jays  he)  the  dire6l  Reverfe  of 
"  what  you  fay;  that  %«//3w  fignifies  the  Joy  which  arifes  upon 
"  Profpe£t,  and  ayaXX(«o/ia<  that  which  arifes  from  Poffeffion  *." 
No  indeed.  I  fee  nothing  like  it.  All  the  Reverje  here,  is  the  Re- 
verfe of  common  Senfe.  Yet  in  that  Reverje,  (a  Feat  none  buthira- 
felf  could  have  brought  about)  the  Confirmation  of  my  own  Re- 
mark.— Amazing  !  The  Followers  of  Chriji  are  bid  to  rejoice,  x'*-^' 
^tje.  For  what  ?  For  being  Partakers  o/Chrift's  Sufferings.  And 
was  not  this  a  Blffmg  in  Pojfeffion  f     But  fome  Divines,  it  feems, 

*  Confid,  p.  14J. 

have 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  411 

have  no  notion  how  Suffering  can  be  a  B/c//ing.  Yet  St.  Paul  reckons 
the  Felloiof)ip  of  Chrlft's  Sufferings  amongll:  the  great  Privileges  of 
the  Gofpel,  fuch  as  the  excellency  of  the  Knoxvledge  o/"Chrlfl:  und  the 
Power  of  his  RefurreStion*.  And  St.  John  couples  it  with  ChrijVs 
Kingdom  f  ; — the  Kingdom  and  Patience  <?/"  Jefus  Chrift.  And  how 
great  a  BUffing  St.  Peter  (in  the  Examiner's  Text)  efteemed  it,  appears 
by  what  follows, — that  ^vhen  his  Glory  pall  be  revealed,  %a:/;)jT£  a-yaX- 
T^icif^svoi,  ye  may  be  glad  ivith  exceeding  foy.  But  I  have  other  Bufi- 
nefs  with  thefe  laft  Words.  For  as  he  quoted  the  foregoing  to  prove 
that  ^a/fw  fignifies  the  Joy  which  arifes  upon  ProfpeSl ;  fo  he  quotes 
thefe  to  prove  that  dyxXXixoiMon  fignifies  that  which  arifes  on  Pof 
fsjfton.  And  with  equal  Succefs.  They  are  bid  to  rejoice  now  in 
Sufferings,  that  they  might  rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad  at  Chris's 
fecond  Coming.  And  is  this  a  Rejoicing  at  a  Good  in  PoJfeJJion  ?  Is 
it  not  for  a  Good  in  Profpedi  f  The  Reward  they  were  going  to 
receive.  For  I  fuppofe  the  Appearance  of  Chriffs  Glory  will  precede 
the  Reward  of  his  Followers.  Unlefs  our  Examiner  has  another 
Myllery  to  fliew  us,  which  St.  Paul  left  untold,  That  the  Reward 
is  to  come  firft,  and  the  Glory  follow.  So  that  now  the  Reader 
fees  he  has  himfelf  fairly  proved,  by  a  good  fubftantial  Text,  the 
Truth  of  my  Obfervation,  That  in  the  exaSl  Ufe  of  the  IFords, 
ayaXXiccoix-cci  fgn'fies  that  tumultuous  Pleafure  which  the  certain 
Expectation  of  an  approaching  BleJJing  occafons  ;  arid  %«//)&;  that 
calm  and  fettled  Joy  that  arifes  from  our  Knowledge  in  the  Pof- 
feffion  of  it. 

His  other  Inflances  are.  Rev.  xix.  7.  **  Let  us  be  glad  and  rejoice 
**  [;^«/pw^£y  iij  ay«XK(u)[A.Eda,]—for  the  Marriage  of  the  Lnmb  is  come. 
**  Where  both  Words  refer  to  Bleflings  in  Pofleffion.  Again,  Mutt. 
"  V.  12.  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad  [x,cclpBle  i^  dyKhXiuSel  for  great 
*'  is  your  Reward  in  Heaven  :  where  both  refer  to  Bleflings  in 
*'  Profpedt  |."  His  villainous  old  Luck  ftill  purfues  him.  The  firft 
Text  from  the  Revelations  ;  Be  glad  and  rejoice  for  the  Marriage  of 

*  Phil.  iii.  8—10,  t  Rev.  i.  9.  %  ConHd.  p.  143,  .144. 

Ggg  2  the 


4,2  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

the  Lamb  is  come;  b'uls  the  Followers  of  ChriJ}  now  do  that,  which 
tiicy  were  bid  to  prepare  for  iii  the  Words  of  St.  Peter,  that,  u^hen 
kis  Glory  Jha II  be  revealed,  ye  may  be  glad  with  exceeding  Joy,  If, 
therefore,  where  they  are  bid  to  prepare  for  their  rejoicing,  the 
Joy  is  for  a  good  in  Profpeft  (as  we  have  proved  it  was),  then, 
certainlv,  where  they  are  told  that  this  time  of  rejoicing  is  comet 
the  Joy  muft  ftill  be  for  a  good  in  Profped.  And  yet  he  fays,  the 
Words  refer  to  Bkjfings  in  PqjfeJJion.  Again,  the  Text  from  St. 
Matthew. — Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your  Reward  ir^^ 
Heaven^  has  the  fame  Relation  to  the  former  part  of  St.  Teter's 
Words,  [Rejoice  inafmuch  as  ye  are  Partakers  of  Chrift's  Stiff erings"] 
as  the  Text,  in  the  Revelations  has  to  the  latter.  BlefJ'ed  are  ye  (fays 
Jefusin  thisGofpel)  when  Men  fliall  revile  you  andperfecute  you,  and 
fhall  fay  all  manner  of  Evil  againfl  you  faljly  for  my  fake.  Rejoice- 
and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your  Reward  in  Heaven.  Re- 
joice !  For  what  ?  Is  it  not  for  the  Perfecutions  they  fuffer  for 
his  fake  ?  A  prejent  Bleffing  fure ;  though  not,  it  may  be,  to  our 
Author's  Tafte.  The  Reafon  why  they  fliould  rejoice,  follows,  for 
great  is  your  reward  in  Heaven.  And  yet  here,  he  fays,  the  JVords 
refer  to  Blejpngs  in  Profpecl.  In  truth  what  led  him  into  all  thefe 
crofs  purpofes,  of  reafon  in  g,  was  a  very  pleafant  Miflake.  The  one 
Text  fays — Be  glad  and  rejoice,  for  on — The  other.  Rejoice  and 
be  exceeding  glad,  for  Iti — Now  he  took  the  Particle,  in  both 
Places,  to  fignify  propter,  for  the  fake  of;  whereas  it  fignifies,  qtto- 
niam,  quia,  and  is,  in  proof  of  fometFwg  going  before.  So  that  he 
read  the  Text — Rejoice  for  the  Marriage  of  the  Lamb  is  come; — as  if 
it  had  been — Rejoice  for  the  Marriage  of  the  Lamb,  which  is  come: 
And — rejoice,  for  great  is  your  Reward  in  Heaven  ;  as  if  it  had  been, — 
Rejoice  for  your  great  Reward  in  Heaven. 

But  now  let  us  confider  all  thefe  Texts  in  another  view,  in  order 
to  do  Juftice  to  his  Delicacy  of  Judgement.  I  had  faid  that,  in  the 
exaa  Vfe  of  the  two  Greek  Words,  they  fignified  fo  and  fo  ;  and 
applied  that  Obfervation  to  a  Fa& ;  where  a  Perfon  was  faid  to  have 
rejoiced,  ^c.     In  order  to  difprove  this  Criticifm,  he  brings  three 

Paffages, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  4,3 

Paffigcs,  In  which  thofe  Greek  Words  are  ufed,  where  no  TaSl  is 
related  ;  but  where  Men  are,  in  a  rhetorical  manner,  called  upon, 
and  bid  to  rejoice,  &c.  In  w^hich  Cafe,  the  Ufe  of  one  Word  for 
another,  is  an  elegant  Converfion.  Thofc,  in  Poflellion  of  a  Blefi- 
ing,  are  bid  to  rejoice  with  that  exceeding.  Joy,  which  Men  gene- 
rally have  in  the  certain  Expedlation  of  one  approaching  ;  and  thofe 
in  Expeilation,  with  that  calnri  and  fettled  Joy,  that  attends  full 
Poflellion^  And  now  who  but  our  Examiner  would  not  fee  that  all 
his  Inflances  fall  fhort  and  wide  of  the  Point  in  Queftion  :  The  ufe 
of  Words  being  o?ic  thing,  in  an  Hiftorical  Aflertion ;  and  another,^ 
ia  a  rhetorical  Invocation  *  ? 

VIII. 

However,  having  fo  ably  acquitted  himfelf  of  one  Criticifm,  he 
falls  upon  another.  "  But  what  then  (fays  he)  fhall  we  do  with 
"  \'vci  ?  To  rejoice  thai  he  might  fee  the  Blefling  which  he  already 
"  had;  in  the  Englifi  Language,  is  not  Senfe.  I  grant  it.  And 
•'  therefore  our  Tranllators  avoid  it,  and  render  the  Paflaee  thus ; 
*'  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  tny  Day,  which  Rendering  will  very 
*'  well  {land  with  the  Greek  ;  where  <W  is  often  put  for  ore  or  o-t  ; 

**  POSITIVE  AS  YOU    ARE  THAT   IT  ALWAYS  REFERS  TO  A  FUTURE 
"  TIME  f. 

*'  What  fhallwe  do  with  I'm  ?" — What  indeed  !  But  no  fooner 
fald  than  done.  He  fathers  it  upon  me.  And  having  flript  it 
of  all  its  Relations  will  needs  make  me  maintain  it.  "  "ivtx,  (fays 
*'  he  J  is  often  put  for  otz  or  ot<,  pofitive  as  you  are,  that  it  always 
*'•  refers  to  a  future  Timej."  Now,  fo  far  from  being  poftive  of 
this,  I  pofitively  deny  that  I  ever  fo  much  as  gave  the  leaft  Hint 
of  fuch  a  Thing.     And  here  I  again  call  upon  him  to  prove  it,  as 

*  See  what  the  Letter  Writer,  quoted  above,  has  faid   concerning  the  Ufe  of  thefc 
two  Greek  Verbs,  p.  62  to  65,  with  much  Learning  and  Judgment, 
t  Confid.  p.  144,  X  Ibid, 

fie 


4t4  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

he  values  his  Chancer  of  an  Anftverer  by  Profeffion;  and  this  for 
the  %€€^B'D  C3IS0(JE  *.  I  faid,  indeed,  that  IVa  i'^^,  in  the 
Text  refers  only  to  a  future  Time.  And  this  I  fay  ftill,  though  the 
Tranflators  have  rendered  it,  equivocally,  to  fee ;  whether  for  tlie 
Reafon  artigned  by  me,  or  my  Examiner,  is  left  to  the  Judgment 
of  the  Reader.  Yet  he  affirms,  that  I  fay,  "  I'm  always  refers  to 
*«  a  future  Time."  That  I  am  pofitive  of  it,  nay  very  pofitive, 
*'  pofitive  as  you  are,"  fays  he.  And  to  cure  me  of  this  Fault,  he 
proceeds  to  fhew,  from  feveral  Texts,  that  I'vos  is  often  put  for  ore 
or  oTi.  *'  Thus  John  xvi.  2.  The  Time  cometh  that  [IVa]  whofoever 
*'  killeth  you  'will  think  he  doth  God  good  Service.  Again  :  i  Cor.  iv. 
•*'  3.  IVith  me  it  is  a  fmall  Thing  that  [IW]  Jf:ould  be  judged  of 
*^ you.  And  nearer  to  the  Point  yet  3  John  4.  /  have  no  greater 
"  y°y  \J^'^  ctitiul  than  that.  I  hear,  or  than  to  hear  that  my  ChiU 
'■'■dren  ivalk  in.  the  Truth.  And  why  not  here^  Sir;  Abraham  re- 
*'■  joked  [I'vci  %]  WHEN  he  faw,  or,  that  he  faw,  or,  which  is  equi- 
*'  valent,  to  see  my  Day  ■f-."  In  Acknowledgment  of  whicii 
Kindnefs,  all  I  can  do  is,  to  return  him  back  his  own  Criticifm  ; 
only  with  the  Greek  Words  put  into  Latin.  The  Tranflator  of 
the  vulgar  Latin  has  rendered  IW  i'S>]  by  ul  videret,  which  Words  I 
•will  fuppofe  him  to  fay  (as  indifferent  a  Latinijl  as  he  appears  to 
have  been)  refer  only  to  a  future  Time.  On  which  I  will  be  very 
arch  and  critical :  Poftive  as  you  are.  Sir,  that  ut  always  refers  to 
a  future  Time,  1  will f^ew  you  that  it  is  fometlmes  put  for  poftquam, 
the  paft, 

Ut  vidi,  ut  perii,  ut  me  tnalus  abilulit  Error  ! 
and,  nearer  to  the  Point  yet,  fometimes  for  quanto, — Ut  quifque  op- 

*  Here  the  learned  Writer  abovementioned  is  juftly  fcandalized  at  his  Man.  "  Pray, 
*'  Sir,  (fays  hrj  what  Authority  have  you   for  this,  that  Mr.  /IT.  is  pofitive  Iv*  always 

•"  refers  to  a  future  Time  ? What  he   faith  is,  that   'U  HSn  in  the  Text  fignifies 

"  the  future  Time:  And  this.,  Sir,  it  does,  and  needs  mull,  for  abundance  of  Rea- 
<*'  fons." p.'-49. 

t  Conlid.  p.  144. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  415 

time  Graece  fciret,  ita  efle  nequifllmum.  "-  And  why  not  here, 
"  Sir,  Abrahcini  rejoiced  [«/"  videret']  when  he  faw,  or  that  he 
"  faw,    or,   which  is  equivalent,   to  see  my  Day. 

IX. 

And  now  he  tells  us,  "  There  is  but  one  Difficulty  that  flands 
*^  in  the  Way."  And  what  is  one  to  a  Man  who  can  lurmount  them 
with  the  fame  Eafe  he  makes  them  ?  The  Difficulty  is  this  ; — ■ 
"  That  according  to  his  [the  Exam/nerds']  Interpretation,  the  latter 
"  Part  of  the  Sentence  is  a  Repetition  of  the  former.  Abraham  re- 
*-^  joiced  to  fee  my  Day,  and  he  faw  it  and  was  ghd ;  i.  e.  Abraham 
"  rejoiced  to  fee,  and  then  faw  and  rejoiced.  But  fuch  kind  of  Repe- 
"  titions  are  frequent  In  the  facred  Dialed  ;  and,  in  my  humble 
"  Opinion,  it  has  an  Elegance  here  j  Abraham  rejoiced  to  fee  my  Day  ; 

*'  ;!^  ith,    Xf  e%af»7,    HE  BOTH   SAW  and  WAS  GLAD  *," 

I  had  talked  inuch  of  Repetitions  in  the  facred  Style  ;  and  lie 
will  do  fo  too  ;  but  W'ithout  knowing  the  Difference  between  a  Pleo' 
nafm  and  a  'Tautology ;  the  firft  of  which  is,  indeed,  often  a  Beauty  ; 
the  other,  always  a  Blemiffi  in  Expreffion  :  And  in  this  Number 
is  the  elegant  Repetition  of  our  Examiner's  own  making.  But,  for 
the  Reader's  better  Information,  I  fhall  tranfcrlbe  what  I  fald  oa 
this  Subje£i;  in  The  Divine  Legation,  The  Pleonafm  evidently  arofe 
from  the  Narrownefs  of  a  fimpk  Language :  The  Hebrew,  in  which 
this  Figure  abounds,  is  the  fcantiefi  of  all  the  learned  Languages  of  the 
Eaji:  Amant  (/tf)'i  Grotius)  Hebrasi  verborum  copiam  ;  itaque  rem 
eandem  multis  verbis  exprimunt.  He  does  not  tell  us  the  Reafon  ; 
but  we  have  given  it  above,  and  it  feems  a  very  natural  07ie :  For 
when  the  Speaker's  Pbrafe  comes  not  up  to  his  Ideas  fas  in  afcanty 
Language  it  often  will  not)  he  endeavours,  of  courfe,  to  explain  him- 
felf  by  a  Repetition  of  the  Thought  in  other  Words  ;  as  he,  -whofe 
Body  is  Jlraiten'd  in  room,    is   alicays   dijfatisfed  -with  his  prejent 

*  Confid.  p.  144,  145, 

Fojlure. 


41-6  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

■Pofture  *.  A  Repetition  of  this  kind,  made  in  different  Words,  is 
-called  a  Pleonafm  :  But  when  in  the  fame  Words,  (as  it  is  in  the 
Text  in  queftion,  if  there  be  ruy  Repetition  at  all)  it  is  then  a 
Tautology ;  which,  being  without  Reafon,  our  Examiner  will  find 
a  Beauty  in  it.  "  In  my  humble  Opinion  (fays  he)  it  has  an  Ele- 
*'  gance."  This  is  not  ill  exprefled.  Humility  of  Opinion  well  be- 
comes him  who  begs  his  Queftion  ;  and  ftill  better,  hini  who  is 
nbout  tojleal  it ;  which  we  (hall  fee  under  the  next  Remark,  he 
wasjuflnow  proje£ling — But  the  only  Pretence  to  £/f^<7«cf,  nay 
even  to  Senfe,  in  his  Tranflation  of  the  Text,  arifes  from  our  being 
jible  to  nnderftand  the  equivocal  Phrafe  to  fee  in  my  Meaning  of, 
that  ke  might  fee;  as  will  appear  to  the  Reader,  by  confining  it  to 
the  Examiner's  Meaning  ;  thus,  Abraham  rejoiced  when  he  had  fen 
my  Dtiy,  and  he  fvw  it  and  was  glad.  The  Abfurdity  of  which 
E-xpreffion  arifes  from  hence,  that  the  latter  Part  of  the  Sentence, 
beginifing  with  the  Conjunftion  Completive,  yy,  naturally  implies  a 
"further  Predication.  Yet  there  is  no  further.  But  our  Examiner, 
willing  to  avoid  fo  glaring  an  Abfurdity,  artfully  drops  the  Senfe 
of  yy  in  the  Sound  of  both.  1  call  it  the  Sound,  for  Senfe  there 
is  none.  Abraham  rejoiced  to  fee  my  Day-,  he  both  f aw  and  was 
glad,  fays  our  elegant  Tranflator.  As  if,  when  he  rejoiced  to  fee ^ 
there  could  be  any  Doubt  whether  he  did  not  ^om  fee  and  rejoice. 
Therefore  I  fhould  advife  him  not  to  defpife  the  Affiftance  the 
"learned  Letter  Writer  gives  him,  who  tells  him  here,  that  the  befl 
Senfe,  he  will  ever  be  able  to  make  of  it,  will  be  this,  Abraham 
rejoiced  to  fee  my  Day  ;  ay,  that  he  did  f .  But  then  as  for  the  Ele- 
gance of  it,  he  muft:  look  to  that  hlmfelf. 

*  See  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  II.  p.  147,  148.     [Vol.  II.  p.  444.  ed.  410.] 
a  Letter  to  the  Author  of  alate  Epift.  Diff.p.  66. 


X.  Having 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS.  4,; 

X. 

Flaving  now  fo  liappily  got  through  his  Criticilhi  on  my  Text, 
he  draws  one  concluding  Argument;  with  which  he  runs  a  muck 
at  my  ivhole  Diflertation.  "  I  fuppofe,  Sir,  it  may  now  be  granted 
"  that  it  is  not  clear  from  thefe  Words  of  our  Saviour ;  that  Abra- 
"  hdm  had  any  fuch  Notice  oiChriJl's  Sacrifice  as  you  contend  for. — 
*'  Here  then,  Sir,  your  Argument  mufl:  neccfliirily  have  its  Pc- 
*'  riod.  For  this  Text  ftands  as  the  Foundation  of  all  that  ful- 
"lows*."  Fair  and  foftly,  good  Sir,  for,  (though  your  Argu- 
ment, be  already  anfwered,  in  a  Confutation  of  your  PremiO'ci)  I 
would  not  have  you  run  away  with  the  Opinion  that  there  is  any 
Relation  between  them  and  your  Conclujion  ;  further  tlian  what  arifes 
from  an  Equivocation,  which  is  a  very  bad  Bond  of  Connexion. 
The  Word  Foundation,  when  applied,  figuratively,  to  a  The/is^ 
fignifies  either  the  5'«//»or/ of  it;  or  tl^e  orderly  IntroduElion  to  it. 
That  I  ufed  it  in  the  latter  Senfe,  appears,  not  only  from  the  Na- 
ture of  the  Thing,  but  from  my  own  exprefs  Words,  in  the  very 
Place  where  I  fpeak  of  this  Foundation.  T'ke  Foundation  of  my 
Thefis  I  lay  in  that  Scripture  of  St.  John,  ivhere  Jefusy^/J  to  the  1111- 
bSeving  Jews,  Your  Father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  fee  my  Day,  and 
he  faw  it  and  was  glad.  If  ive  confider  Abraham's  pcrfonal  Charailer, 
together  with  the  Choice  made  of  him  for  Head  and  Origin  of  that  Peo- 
ple 'which  God  would  make  holy  and  feparate  to  himflf,  from  whence 
ivas  to  rife  the  Redeemer  of  Mankind,  the  ultimate  End  of  that  Se- 
paration,   WE  CANNOT  BUT  CONCLUDE  IT  PROBABLE  that  the  KnoW' 

ledge  of  this  Redeemer  Jhould  be  revealed  to  him.  Shall  I  hide  from 
Abraham  the  Thing  which  I  do,  fays  God,  in  a  Mattr  that  much 
lefs  concerned  the  Father  of  the  Faithful.  And  here,  in  the  Words  of 
Jefus,  "jce  have  this  probable  Fact,  arising  from  the  Nature 
OF  THE  Thing,  made  certain  and  put  out  nf  all  reafonable  ^tcJiion-\." 

*  Cor.fid.  p.  145.  t  Div.  Leg.  vol.  If.  p.  S94-     [Vol.  Til    p.  374.     Ed. +to.] 

Vol.  VI.  H  h  h  Here 


4i8  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

Here  the  Reader  fees  tliat  I  ufe  the  Words  of  '^Jefm  which  I  call  the 
Foundation,  as  the  orderly  Introduction  to  and  Confirmation  only  of 
a  Thefis  which  I  call  proboble,  and  prove  by  other  Media.  And  as 
I  fliew,  both  from  the  Words  oi  Jefiis,  and  the  Nature  of  the  Thing, 
\\\-;xX.  Abraham  faw  ChrjTs  Day :  So,  from  both,  I  prove  that  this 
Truth  mufi:  be  recorded  fomewhere  or  other  in  the  Old  Teftament. 
From  tlience  I  proceed  to  the  Proof  of  thefe  two  Points,  "  i.  That 
«^  there  is  no  Place  in  the  whole  Hiftory  of  Abraham,  but  that 
"  where  he  is  commanded  to  offer  up  his  Son,  which  bears  the 
♦'  lenfl:  Marks  or  Traces  of  the  Revelation  of  ChrijTs  Day.  2  That 
"  this  Command  has  all  the  Marks  of  it,  and  is,  indeed,  that  very 
«'  Revelation  *."  In  doing  this,  amongft  the  various  Arguments 
employed,  I  (hew  that,  at  the  T  ime  of  Abraham,  Information  by 
Adion  was  the  moft  fiimiliar  Mode  of  Converfation  ; — that  the  Hif- 
tory  of  the  Command  has  all  the  Marks  of  fuch  a  Converfation  ; — 
thr.t,  if  it  be  not  fo  underftood,  the  Story  oi  Abraham  is  abrupt 
and  unconncvSlcd  ; — and  the  Hiftory  of  the  Command  attended  with 
iiifuperable  Difficulties.  Yet  for  all  this,  my  Examiner  tells  you. 
That  my  Thefis  "  mirfl  neceflarily  have  its  Period,"  when  he  has 
tc^ken  away  the  Foundation  in  my  Text  -f. 

'Tis  true,  he  gives  a  Reafon  for  this  definitive  Sentence,  which  is 
this:  "  That  the  Tendency  of  all  that  follows   is  only  to  shew 

"  THAT  ADMITTING,  OR  ALLOWING  THAT  ABRAHAM  WAS  AC- 
"  QUAINTED  WITH  THE  GREAT  SACRIFICE  OF  ChRIST,    that  then 

"  it  is  reafonable  to  expeft  an  Account  of  it  in  his  \  Hiflory," 
Hfc.  ^c.  The  Reader  obferves  from  my  own  Words,  in  The  Di- 
vine Legation,  quoted  above,  that  I  thought  we  might  from  the 
Nature  of  the  Thing,  expect  an  Account  of  it  in  his  Hifiory.  This  is 
therefore  the  Clp3lKD  C  31  ^  C  1  am  obliged  to  call  folemnly 
upon  him,  to  fliew  that  all  my  Proofs  of  tl*e  Command's  being  the 

*  Divine  Lcgat.  Vol.  II.  p.  598.     [Vol.  IH.  p.  378,    Ed.  410.] 
+  See  tliis  Point  well  argued   by  the  learned  Writer  of  the  Letter  before-mentioned, 
in  which,  from  p.  3  to  12,  he  very  ably  confutes  the  Exanniner's  Conclufion. 
I  Confid.  p.  145. 

Reve- 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  419 

Revelation  of  Chr'ifs  Day,  reft  upon  *'  the  AdmiHion  or  Allowance 
"  that  Abraham  was  acquainted  with  the  great  Sacritice  of  C.briJ}, 
"  as  it  Is  to  be  coUedledfrom  the  Text  in  St.  John."  The  Lll  Words 
I  have  added  ;  and  thereby  hangs  a  Tale.  The  Reader  is  now  to 
be  let  into  a  Secret.  The  Examiner,  in  giving  the  fini(hing  Stroke 
to  the  DiJJertation  on  the  Cafe  0/' Abraham,  had  referved,  as  was  fit, 
one  of  the  neateft  Tricks  of  his  Trade  to  be  played  off  on  this  Occa- 
fion.  And  thus  he  does  the  Feat.  *'  Your  Foundation  fja\s  he) 
*'  is  fubverted  ;  therefore  all  that  follows  is  overthrown."  Wliy 
fo  ? — Why  fo  !  Becaufe  "  the  Tendency  of  all  is  to  fliew,  that, 
"  admitting  or  allowing  that  Abraham  was  acquainted — then  it  is 
"  rcafonable  to  expedl" — Well,  but  may  it  not  be  admitted  or  allowed^ 
from  otlier  Arguments  produced  in  The  Divine  Legation  befides  the 
Text  in  Queftion,  that  Abraham  was  acquainted  with  the  great 
S.icrifcc  of  Chrift  ?  Your  humble  Servant,  Sir,  fays  he  for  that. 
The  Force  of  my  Confequence  depends  upon  the  honeft:  Reader's 
taking  it,  as  I  defign  he  fliould  ;  that  it  could  only  be  admitted  or 
al'oived  from  the  Text  in  Queflion  :  For  if  once  he  conceives  that 
it  might  be  allowed  from  other  Arguments  in  Tlje  Divine  Legation, 
there  is  an  End  of  my  Confcqutnce  ;  and  yet  you  would  put  me  upon 
explaining. 

XI. 

However,  our  Examiner,  as  if  not  quite  flitished  liimfelf,  with 
ibis  Period  he  bath  put  to  my  Argument,  goes  on  thus  :  "  But  to  make 
"  good  the  Defedt  in  this  confequcntial  Reafoning,  you  offer  at 
"  one  dire£l  Proof,  to  fliew  that  the  Command,  and  the  Tranfaftion 
"  confequent  upon  it,  was  indeed  as  a  reprefcntative  Information  to 
*'  Abraham  of  the  Redemption  of  Mankind,  by  the  Sacrifice  of 
'*  Chrfi ;  w^hich  is.  That  the  Author  of  the  Epiflle  to  the  Hebrews 
"  has  plainly  hinted  that  he  confidered  it  in  this  Liglit.  Your 
"  Proof  is  from  thefe  Words,  Chap.  xi.  ver.  17— 19.  By  Faith, 
"  i\braham  offered  up  Ifaac — accounting  that  God  was  able  to  raife 
*'  him  from  the  Dead;  from  whence  olfo  he  received  him  in  a  Figure, 
H  h  h  2  "  EN 


420  REMAPxKS    ON    SEVERAL 

"  EN  nAPABOAH,  in  a  Parable:  A  Mode  of  Information  by  Words 
"  or  Actions,  •which  cofjh  in  putting  one  thing  for  another.  Now 
♦•  in  a  Jl'riter  (fnv  vou)  "who  regarded  this  commanded  ASlion,  as  a 
"  reprfcntative  Informa  ion  of  the  Redemption  of  Mankind ^  not  hi  tig 
"  could  be  more  Jj'ie  or  eajy  than  this  Expreffion.  For  though  Abra- 
•'  ham  did  nnt^  indeed,  receive  Ifaac  rfored  to  Life  after  a  real  Df- 
^''flution;  yet  the  Son  being,  in  this  AJfion,  to  reprefcnt  Chrifl:/^/". 
**  f  ring  Death  Jo'  the  Sins  of  the  World,  when  the  Father  brought 
•»  him  fife  from  Mount  Moriah,  after  three  Days,  during  which 
«*  he  was  in  the  State  of  Condemnation  to  Death  ;  he  plainly  received 
•'  him  under  the  CharaBer  of  Chrift's  Reprefentative,  as  reforedfrom 
'*  the  Dead.  For  as  his  coming  to  the  Mount,  and  binding,  and  layi.ig 
"  on  the  Altar,  fgured  the  Sufferings  and  Death  ^/Chrifl: ;  fo  his  being 
"  taken  from  thence  alive,  as  properly  figured  Chrift's  RefurreSlion 
*'  from  the  Dead.  With  the  highef  Propriety,  therefore,  and  E'egancg 
"  of  Speech,  might  Abraham  befaid  to  receive  U^^c  from  the  Dead  i^ 
"  a  Parable,  or  in  Reprefentation  *." 

Let  us  fee  now  what  our  Examiner  has  to  objeft  to  this  Crltl- 
clfin. — "  By  your  Leave,  Sir,"  fays  he — which,  by  the  Way,  he 
m-ver  afk?,  but  to  abufe  me ;  nor  never  takes,  but  to  mlfreprefent 
me — "  If  the  Apoftle  had  meant  by  this  Expreffion,  to  fignify,  that 
"  Ijactc  ftood  as  the  Reprefentative  of  Chrif,  and  that  his  being 
"  taken  from  the  Mount  alive  was  the  Figure  of  CbrifCs  Refurrec- 
"  tlon;  it  Jhould  have  been  fald,  that  Abraham  received  Christ 
"  from  the  Dead  in  a  Figure  f-"  See  here,  ye  little  Critics ;  that 
N?f,  that  Soul  of  Criticifm,  which  Benthy  fo  much  lamented  he 
could  find  no  where,  out  of  hlmfelf.  The  Writer  of  the  Epifile  to 
the  Heb-eu'S  is  giving  an  Inftance  of  Abraham's  Faith,  who,  againjl 
Hope,  believed  in  Hope,  where  his  only  Son  (through  whom  he  was 
promlfed  to  be  the  Father  of  a  mighty  Nation)  was  commanded  to 
be  offered  up  in  Sacrifice.  In  which  Account,  the  facred  Writer 
hath  ufcd  an  Expreffion  which  I  fuppofcd  doth  intimate  that  he  un- 

♦   Confid.   p.  146,   147.  f    Ibid.  p.  147. 

derflood 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  421 

derftood  the  Nature  of  tlie  Command  to  be,  what  I  have  attempted 
to  explain  it.  To  this  our  Examiner  fays,  No.  Had  he  thus  un- 
derftood  it,  he  should  have  faid,  net  that  Abraham  received  Isaac, 
but  that  he  received  Christ  from  the  Dead  in  a  Figure.  What  ? 
where  the  Difcourfe  was  not  concerning  Chriji,  but  IJhac  ?  Had, 
indeed,  the  facred  Writer  been  fpeaking  oi  Abraham^ s  Kncwledge 
of  Chri/},  fomcthing  might  have  been  i^iid  ;  but  he  is  fpaakiiig  of 
a  very  different  Thing,  his  Faith  in  God ;  and  only  intinnrtes^  by  ar 
forceable  Term,  what  he  underftood  that  x^dion  to  be,  which,  he 
gives,  as  an  Inftance  of  the  moft  illuftrious  A61  of  Faith.  I  fay, 
had  this  been  the  Cafe,  fnmething  might  have  been  faid  ;  fomething., 
I  mean,  to  keep  him  in  Countenance  ;  yet  ftill,  nothing  to  the  Pur- 
pofe,  as  I  fhall  now  fliew.  The  TranfaSlion  of  the  Sacrifice  oj  Chrif, 
related  to  God'.  The  Figure  oi  thzt  Tranfiiftion,  in  the  Command 
to  offer  Jfaac^  related  (according  to  my  Interpretation)  to  Abraham. 
Now,  it  was  God  who  received  Chrifi :  As  it  was  Abraham  who 
received  Ifaac.  To  tell  us  then,  that  (according  to  my  Interpreta- 
tion) it  sv.ov-L^  have  beenfaid,  thai  Ahr^h^tn  received Chuist  fro'n 
the  Dead  in  a  Figure,  is  only  (hewing  us  that  he  knows  jull  as 
much  of  Logical  Exprefiion,  as  of  Theological  Argumentation  •■. 
It  is  true,  could  he  fhew  tire  Expreflion  improper,  in  the  Senfe  I 
underfland  it,  he  would  then  fpeak  more  to  the  Purpofe  ;  and  this, 
to  do  him  Juftlce,  he  would  fain  be  at.  For  thus  it  follows,  "  For 
ffays  he)  ^'^Chrijl  it  was  (according  to  your  Interpretation)  that 
*'  was  received  from  the  Dead  in  a  Figure,  by  Ifaac  his  Reprefenta- 
*'  five,  who  really  came  alive  from  the  Mount.  If  tjie  Reading  had 
*'  been,  not  \v  OTapafio;. -Jj,  but  i\q  'srx^a&oXyivf  it  would  have  fuited 
"  your  Notion  j  for  it  might  properly  have  been  faid,  that  Ijaac 
*<  came  alive  from  the  Mount  as  a  Figure,  or  that  he  might  be  a 
"Figure,  of  the  Refurredion  of  Chrifi  j-."  Miferable  Chicane  I 
As,  on   the  one  Hand,  I  might  fay  with  Propriety,  that  Christ 

*  See  here  again  the  learned  Writer  of  tlic  Letter  abovenicntioncd,  p.  43. 
t   Confid.    p.  147. 


4:i  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

was  received  from  the  Dead  in  a  Figure,  i.  e.  by  a  Reprefentative : 
So  could  I  not  as  well  %,  on  the  other,  that  Isaac  ivus  receved 
from  the  Dead  iti  a  Figure,  i.  e.  as  a  Reprefentative  ?  For  he,  lul- 
\aining  the  Perfon  of  Chrif,  who  was  raifed  from  the  Dead,  might 
in  a  Figure,  i.  e.  as  that  Perfon,  be  {iild  to  be  received  :  Yet  this 
our  Examiner  denies,  and  fays,  the  Apoftle  should  have  Jaid  that 
Abraham  received  Christ,  and  not  Isaac.  "  But  (fays  he')  if  the 
*«  reading  had  been  not  \v  n«/;«£oA[i,  but  eiV  napaSoXr)!/,  it  would  have 
««  fiiitcd  YOUR  Notion."  And  the  Reafon  he  gives  is  this:  "  For 
"it  might  properly  have  been  faid  that  Ifaac  came  alive  from  the 
"  Mount  as  a  Figure,  or  that  he  might  be  a  Figure,  of  theRe- 
«'  furreclion  oi  Chriji"  Amazing!  he  fays  this  would  have  fuited 
my  Notion  ;  and  the  Reafon  he  gives  fliews  it  fuits  only  his  own, 
which  is  that  the  Exaclnefs  of  the  Refmblance,  not  the  Declaration 
of  the  Giver  of  the  Command,  made  it  a  Figure.  This  is  the  more 
extraordinary,  as  I  myfelf  had  fhewn  that  the  old  Latin  Tranfla- 
tor  had  turned  the  Words  into  in  parabolat/i  inftetid  of  m  Para- 
bola for  this  very  Reafon,  that  he  underftood  the  Command  in  the 
Senfe  our  Examiner  contends  for  ;  viz.  Th^iX.  Ifaac,  by  the  Refem- 
blance  of  the  Adions,  might  be,  or  might  become  a  Figure,  &c. 
But  the  Nature  (fayl)  of  the  Command  beitig  unknown,  thefe  Words 
of  the  Epiftle  have  been  underflood  to  fignify  only  that  Ifaac  was  a  Type 
of  Chriji,  in  the  fame  Senfe,  that  the  Old  Tabernacle  in  this  EpijUe  is 

called  a  Type --^t;?  riAPABOAH,  that  is,  a  Thing  dfgned  by  the  holy 

Spirit,  to  have  both  a  prefent  Significancy  and  a  future.  IVhich 
amounts  hut  jujl  to  this,  that  Abraham  receiving  \{?LZcfafe  from  Mount 
Moriah,  in  the  Manner  Scripture  relates,  he,  thereby,  became  a  Ty^e. 
An  ancient  Interpretation,  as  appears  by  the  reading  of  the  vulgate 
Latin.  Unde  eum  in  Parabolam  accepit,  /or  in  Parabola,  as  it 
ought  to  have  been  tratijlated,  conformably  to  the  Greek  *. 

*  DivineLegat.  Vol.11,  p.  613.     [Vol.111,  p.  394.  Ed.  4to,] 


XII.  But 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  423 

XII. 

But  to  return  to  our  Examiner;  who,  after  all  this  Expcnce  of 
Criticifm,  owns,  at  lall,  that  "  a  i^(?j/o«  will  be  wanting,  why  in- 
"  ftead  of  fpeaking  the  Fa£l  as  it  really  was,  that  Ifaac  came  alive 
"  from  the  Mount,  the  Apoftle  chofe  rather  to  fay  (what  was  not 
*'  really  the  Cafe)  that  Abraham  received  him  from  the  Dead  *." 
Well;  and  have  not  I  given  a  Reafon? — And  what  then?  For 
what  did  I  commence  Examiner,  if  I  mayn't  have  Reafons  of  my 
own  ? — They  follow  thus,  "  \i  Ifaac  did  not  die  (as  it  is  certain 
*'  he  did  not)  Abraham  could  not  receive  him  from  the  Dead.  And 
"  yet  the  Apoftle  fays,  he  received  him/row  the  Dead.  The  clear- 
*'  ing  up  this  Difficulty,  will  fhew  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Pafllige  -}•." 
What,  will  the  clearing  up  a  Difficulty  of  his  own  making  difcover 
the  true  Senfe  of  another  Man's  Writing  ?  This  is  one  of  his  new 
Improvements  in  Logic  ;  in  which,  as  in  Arithmetic,  he  has  intro- 
duced a  Rule  ofFalfc,  whereby  an  unknown  Truth  is  to  he  fcrrcttcd 
out  by  a  known  Untruth.  For  there  is  none  of  this  Difficulty  in 
the  facredText;  it  is  not  there,  as  in  our  Examiner's  Exprertion, 
laid  by  the  Apoftle,  (imply,  that  Abraham  received  Ifaac  Jrom  the 
Deady  but  that  he  received  him,  from  thence,  in  a  Figure,  or 
under  the  affumed  Perfonage  of  Chrifl.  Now  if  Chrijl  died,  then 
he,  who  afTumed  his  Perfonage,  in  order  to  reprefent  his  Paffion 
and  Refurreilion,  might,  lurely,  well  be  faid  to  be  received  from 
the  Dead  in  a  Figure.  A  wonderful  Difficulty  truly  !  and  as  won- 
derfully folved,  by  a  Conundrum  !  But  with  Propriety  fufficient  : 
For  as  a  real  Difficulty  requires  Senfe  and  Criticifm,  an  im.nginaiy 
one  may  well  enough  be  managed  by  a  Quibble.  Becaufe  the 
Tranflators  of  St.  MarlCs  Gofpel  have  rendered  ev  xsolu.  T!rcepK^oXv, 
by — with  what  Comparifonfjal/  we  compare  it,  therefore  \v  wa^ agsXr, 
in  the  Text  in  Queftion,  he  fays,  ilgnifies  comparatively 
SPEAKING.     But   no  Words  can   Ihew  him  equal  to  his  own — 

*   Confid.  p.  147,    148.  f  Ibid. 

"  The 


42+  REMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

*•  The  Apoflle  does  not  i^y  ftmply  and  abfolutely^  that  Abraham  re- 
"  cclvcd  Ifaac  from  the  Dead  ;  but  that  he  received  him  from  the 
"<■  Dead,  h  zrupaCoXvt  /«  a  Parable."  See  here  now  !  Did  not  I  tell 
you  fo  ?  There  was  no  Difficulty  all  this  while  :  The  Sentence 
only  opened  to  the  Right  and  Left  to  make  Room  for  his  Objec- 
tion :  And  now  clofcs  again.  "  It  was  not  fimply  faid" — No. 
"  But  that  he  received  him — \v  ■srapa.QoX^ ,  in  a  Parable^  i,  e.  in  a 
*'  Comparifon,  or  by  Comparifon.  Thus  the  word  is  u{ed  Mark  iv.  30. 
"  TrhcrcuntoJI.HilltJce  liken  the  Kingdom  of  God,  or  with  what  Com- 
''  I'ARisoN  \\.i  ■srcla.  TsrapoiCo'Ayi]  Jljall  we  compare  it.  The  Meaning 
"  then  may  be,  that  Abraharns  receiving  Ifaac  alive  (after  his  Death 
"  was  denounced)  by  the  Revocation  of  the  Command,  was  as  if 
"HE  HAD  received  him  from  the  Dead.  Thus  feveral  Interpreters 
"  underftand  the  Place.  Or  it  may  be,  as  others  will  have  it,  that 
*'  the  Apoftle  here  refers  to  the  Birth  of  Ifaac  ;  which  was  [Iv  •ara- 
"  pa£oXrj  COMPARATIVELY  SPEAKING,  a  receiving  him  from  the 
"  Dead  ;  his  Father  being  old,  and  his  Mother  paft  the  Age  of 
*'  Child-bearing,  on  which  Account  the  Apoflle  ftyles  them  both 
"  dead.  Which  Interpretation,  1  the  rather  approve,  becauf(i  it  fug- 
"  gefts  the  proper  Grounds  oi  AbrahanisYziih.  «." 

He  fays,  h  7zra^a£oX>;  fignifies  in  or  by  Comparifon  ;  and  that 
the  Word  is  fo  ufed  in  St.  Mark  ;  to  prove  which,  he  quotes  the 
EngUf)  Tranflation.  Now  I  muft  take  the  Liberty  to  tell  him,  that 
the  Tranflarors  were  miflaken  ;  and  he  with  them.  IlafaiSoAJj,  in 
St.  Mark,  is  not  ufed  in  the  Senfe  of  a  Similitude  or  Comparifon,  but 
of  a  Parable.  The  Ancients  had  two  Ways  of  illuftrating  the 
Things  they  inforced  ;  the  one  was  by  a  Parable,  the  other  by  a 
fimple  Comparifon  or  Simile.  How  the  latter  of  thefe  arofe  out^of 
the  former  I  have  (hewn  in  The  Divine  Legation  f.  Now,  I  fay, 
that  both  thefe  Modes  of  llluftration  are  referred  to  in  the  Text 
of  St.  Mark ;  which  fhould  have  been  tranflated  thus.  To  what 
fjall  wi?  COMPARE  the  Kingdom  of  God,  or  with  what  ^AVih^LEfiall 

*  Confid.  p.  14S,  149.  I  Vol.11,  p.  93.    [Vol.ll.  p.  411.  Ed.  4to.] 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  425 

ive  illujlrate  or parabolize  it — ci/.oiuiTui^iv — ■wapaCJ.Ktcijuv. — So  tlint  the 
latter  Part  of  the  Verfe  is  not  a  Repetition,  as  the  Tranflntors  icctn 
to  have  thought,  of  the  former  ;  fo  frequent  in  the  Scripture  Style; 
but,  both  together,  exprefs  two  different  and  well-known  Modes  of 
llluftratlon. 

But  now  fuppofe,  l>  wo!(z  srci^ciSoxTi  had  figniiied  ivJ//j  ivbat  Com- 
farijon:  How  comes  it  to  pafs  the  \v  Tsd'ooL^a^y^  fliould  {\^x\\'iy  by 
Comparlfor.^  or  as  it  were,  or  coMPi\RATiVELV  speaking  ?  In 
plain  Truth,  his  critical  Analogy  has  terminated  in  a  pleafant 
Blunder.  How  fo  ?  fays  he. — Nay  'tis  true  there's  no  denying, 
but  that  /peaking  by  Comparifon  is  comparatively  /peaking:  And,  if 
Men  will  needs  put  another  Senfe  upon  It,  who  can  help  that  ? 
Was  it  a  Time  for  our  Author,  when  he  was  writing  Examinations, 
to  fpoil  a  good  Argument  by  nicely  enquiring  into  the  Sen/e  of  an 
Expreffion  ?  He  left  it  to  thofe  whom  it  more  concerned,  to  tell 
the  Reader,  that  comparatively /peaking  does  not  at  prefent  (what- 
ever it  might  heretofore)  fignify,  /peaking  by  a  Compari/on  ;  but 
fpeaking  loofely  and  incorredlly  ;  which  Senfe  of  the  Phrafe,  I  fup- 
pofe, arofe  from  the  Compari/om  of  fuch  Kind  of  Writers  as  our 
Examiner;  that  were  generally  obferved  to  be  lame  and  Inaccurate. 
However,  though  I  am  no  great  Friend  to  the  Innocence  of  Error^ 
I  fhould  have  been  ready  enough  to  think  it  a  fimple  Blunder,  had 
I  not  obferved  him  to  go  Into  It  with  much  artful  Preparation  ;  a 
Clrcumflance  by  no  Means  charafteriftic  of  that  genuine  Turn  of 
Mind,  which  is  quick  and  fudden,  and  over  Head  and  Ears  in  an 
Inftant :  But  he  begins  with  explaining,  in  a  Compari/on,  by — by 
Compari/n-:  In  which,  you  jufl:  get  the  firft  Glimpfe,  as  It  were, 
of  an  enafcent  Equivocation  ;  and  this  [by  Compari/oti]  is  prefently, 
afterwards,  turned  Into,  as  it  were,  or,  as  if  he  had;  and  then, 
comparatively  /peaking  brings  up  the  Rear,  and  clofes  the  Criticifni 
three  deep.  But  he  "  approves  of  the  Interpretation"  which  makes 
the  Author  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrexvs  "  refer  to  the  Birth  of 
"  I/aac,  becaufe  it  fuggefts  (he /ays)  the  proper  grounds  o? Abra- 
"  ham's  Faith."     Till  now  I  tliought  the  proper  grounds  oi  Abra- 

VcL.  VI.  1  i  I  hani's 


426  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

hams  Faith  (as  of  every  other  Mnn's)  had  been  his  Knowlecl^re  of 
the  Nature  of  the  Godliead,  one  of  whofe  Attributes  is  Veracity. 
No,  fays  this  great  Piiilofopher  and  Divine  ;  his  proper  grounds  were 
thefe,  that  God  had  told  him  Truth  once  aheady. — And  now  had 
he  not  Realon,  after  all  this,  to  turn  to  me,  and  with  an  Air  of 
Triumph  and  Gaiety  to  accoft  me  in  the  following  Manner  ?  "  It 
"  is  not  to  be  fuppofed.  Sir,  that  you  are  a  Stranger  to  thefe  In- 
"  terpretatlons,  wiilch  are  in  every  body's  Hands ;  but  as  if  nothing 
•'  of  this  Sort  had  ever  been  thought  of,  you  pafs  it  over  with  ab- 
"  folute  Negled;  and  will  needs  have  it,  that  the  Apoftle  was/w// 
"  p/'your  Ideas  ;  for  no  other  Reafon  that  I  can  fee,  than  becauie 
♦'you  are  full  of  them  yourfelf*."  Indeed,  Sir,  comparatively 
fpeak'mgy  I  was  much  a  Stranger  to  them.  For  what  were  they, 
till  feen  in  the  pleafant  Light  in  which  you  have  placed  them  ?  I 
will  only  fay  one  Thing  to  your  Argument  (as  I  now  haften  to 
your  Wit)  ;  which  Is,  that,  had  you  known  the  Force  of  the  Word 
£xofK'(7«7o,  in  the  Text,  you  had  known  that  X.\\q  Deadnefs  o/' Sarah's 
JVomb  could  not  be  meant.  But,  fince  you  love  the  Authority  of  In- 
terpreters t>  I  ^vill  give  you  what  the  great  Scaliger  fays  on  the 
Words  ey  zjrapagoXJi,  "  In  imagine  quadam  refurreftionis :  quia  qui 
"  immolationi  addl£lus  erat,  &  poftea  llberatus,  videtur  tanquam 
*'  refurrexlffe.     Haec  efl  Cahini  expofitio,  longe  omnium  optima." 

But,  fays  our  Examiner,  "  you  will  needs  have  it  that  the  Apof- 
"  tie  was  full  of  YOUR  Ideas."  My  Ideasy  Intimates  Ideas  difcovered 
by  me  ;  and  to  fuppofe  the  Apoftle/a//  of  thefe,  would  have  been, 
I  confefs,  a  little  extraordinary.  The  Truth  is,  I  fald  nothing  fo 
filly.  Ifaid,  TiiESE/is'f^J.  But  what  then?  It  was  neceflary,  per- 
haps, to  the  Wit  that  follows — "  for  no  other  Reafon  that  I  can 
"  fee,  than  becaufe  you  are  full  of  them  yourfelf."  And  fhaU  I  be 
angry  with  him  for  this  ?     Surely,  no.     I  cati  eafily  forgive  the 

*  Confiderations,  p.  148,   149. 

t  The  learned  Letter  Writer  abovementioned  gives   another    good  Reafon,  and  pi o 
duces  another  good  Authority  againft  this  Fancy.     See  p.  48, 

faUe 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  427 

hKe  Quotation  for  the  Sake  of  fo  much  Wit.  For,  as  Supkino  f-iys 
to  his  Viceroy  on  the  hke  Occafion,  *'  J  thank  thee  for  that  Jc-ft  ; 
"  'tis  an  excellent  Pafs  of  Pate:  and  Wit  (hall  not  go  unixwardcd 
*'  wliile  I  am  King  of  this  Ifland." 

XIII. 

Our  Examiner  goes  on  :  "  The  lafl:  Step  (fays  he)  you  take  in 
"  this  Argument  is  to  raife  Objcftions  againil  the  common  Account 
♦'  of  this  Hiftory  ;  in  order  to  draw  an  Inference  from  thence,  that 
"  your  Account  muft  be  the  true  one  ;  and  this  is  what  I  ihall  next 
"  confider  *."  He  had  faid  before,  that  having  flruck  my  Corner' 
Jiofie,  and  unfettled  my  Foundation,  he  had  llopt  me  fhort,  and  put 
a  Period  to  my  Jrgutnent.  But  it  feems,  fomehow  or  other,  I  had 
recovered  myfelf,  and  puflied  it  forward.  For  now  he  talks  of 
another  Step  I  had  taken  in  this  Argument.  Happily  indeed,  both  for 
himfelf  and  me,  it  is  the  lajl.  "  You  tell  us  then  (fays  he)  that 
*'  the  Command,  as  it  hath  been  hitherto  undcrjiood — occupies  a  Place 
"  in  Abraham's  HJiory,  that,  according  to  our  Ideas  of  'Things,  it 
*'  cannot  properly  have.  The  Command  is  [uppofed  to  he  given  as  a  Trial 
**  only.  Now  when  the  great  Searcher  of  Hearts  is  pleafcd  to  try  any 
*'  of  his  Servants,  either  for  Example  fake,  or  for  fame  other  Ettd — 
"  as  in  this  he  condefcends  to  the  Manner  ofMen—fo,  ive  may  be 
"  ajfured,  he  •would  accommodate  himfelf  to  their  Manner  likczvifc,  in 
"  the  moft  material  Circumftance  of  the  Trial.  But  amongfi  Men, 
"  the  Agent  is  always  tried  before  he  is  fet  on  Work,  or  rewarded, 
"  and  not  after — On  the  contrary — this  Trial  was  made  after  all  Ahnx- 
"  ham's  [Fork  was  done  ;  and  all  God's  Mercies  received — nay,  wh.it 
"  is  Jlitl  more  fir  ange,  after  he  had  been  once  tried  already. — We  mufl 
"  yieeds  conclude  therefore,  that  the  Command  ivas  not  (according  in 
"  the  common  Notion')  a  Trial  only,  becaufe  it  comes  after  ail  God's 
"  Difpeffations.  2'et,  as  the  facred  Text  afflires  us,  it  was  a 
"  Trial,    and  as   a   Trial   nccejj'arily  precedes  the   Employment  or 

*   Confiderations,  p.  149. 

I  i  I  2  "  Reward 


428  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

•'  Rcwnrd  of  the  Per/on  tried;  we  mujl  needs  conclude^  that  as  no  Em^ 
"  ploymcnt,  fo  fonie  Bene  fit  fo//oivcd  this  Trial  'Now  onjur  Inter- 
'*  prelation,  a  Benefit,  as  we  Jhallfce,  did fo/lozv.  IVe  have  Reafon 
"  therefore  to  conclude  this  Interpretation  to  be  the  true  *."  To  thfs 
he  anfwers,  "  You  lay  it  down  here  as  the  common  Interpretation, 
*'  that  the  Command  to  Abraham  to  offer  up  his  Son  was  given  as  a 
*' Trial  only;  which  is  not  true."  Why?-  Becaufe  "the 
'*  common  Opinion  is,  that  God's  Intention  in  this  Command  was 
"  not  only  to  try  Abraham^  but  alfo  to  prefigure  the  Sacrifice  of 
*♦  Cbriji\y  Excellent  !  I  fpeak  here  of  the  Command'' s  being ^/w/7. 
But  given  to  whom  ?  To  all  the  Faithful^  for  whofg  Sake  it  wa-s 
recorded?  or  to  Abraham  only,  for  whofe  Sake  it  was  revealed? 
Does  not  the  very  Subjeft  confine  my  Meaning  to  this  latter  Senfe  ? 
Now,  to  Abraham,  I  fay  (accorcUng  to  the  common  Opinion)  ic 
■was  given  as  a  Trial  only.  To  the  Faithful,  if  you  will,  as  a  Pre- 
fgwation.  If,  to  extricate  himfelf  from  his  confufed  or  fophiftical 
Reafoning,  he  will  fay  it  prefigured  to  Abraham  likewife  ;  he  then 
gives  up  all  he  has  been  contending  for,  againfl  my  Interpretation, 
'oiz.  that  Abraham  knew  this  to  be  a  Reprefentation  of  the  great 
Sacrifice  of  Chrifi  :  1  call  his  Reafoning  confifed  or  fophificeil.  See, 
if  he  be  not  obliged  to  me  for  my  Indecifion.  Where  I  fpeak  of  the 
common  Opinion,  I  fiiy,  the  Command  is  fuppcfed  to  be  given  as  a 
Trial  only.  He  thinks  fit  to  tell  me,  Ifay  7iot  true.  But  when  he 
comes  to  prove  it,  he  changes  the  Terms  of  the  Queftion  thus, 
*'  For  the  common  Opinion  is  tliat  God's  Intention  in  thisCom- 
"  mand  was,"  ^c.  Now  the  Purpofe  of  God's  giving  a  Command 
to  Abraham,  for  his  Sake,  might  be  one  Thing ;  and  his  general 
Intention,  in  that  Command,  as  it  concerned  the  Whole  of  his  Dif- 
penfation,  another.  1  leave  it  therefore  to  the  Reader  to  determine, 
whether  our  Examiner  changed  the  Terms  of  the  QueAion   Ly 

*  Confid.  p.  149,   150. 

t  Ccnlld.  p.  150.  Here  again  the  learned  Writer  in  his  Letter  to  our  Examiner, 
p.  14.  very  clearly  expofes  this  Sophifni. 

Defign 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  429 

Defign  or  Ignornncc.  But  I  liave  another  Reafon  why  he  fliould 
have  allowed  me,  in  this  Phicc  at  leafl,  not  to  have  been  miflaken. 
And  that  is,  becaufe  a  great  Man  (whofe  Authority  is  defcrvedly 
the  higheft  in  the  learned  World,  and  which  our  Examiner  has 
more  Reafons  than  one  to  pay  a  due  Regard  to)  is  in  the  fame  Sen- 
timents ;  and  takes  it  for  granted,  as  we  fhall  fee  by  the  Words  that 
follow,  that  the  cotnnion  Opinion  is  that  Go^'s  giving  this  Command 
was  "  only  to  try  Abraham.  I  was  (fays  he)  under  a  Difficulty 
*'  (a  Cafe,  which,  I  dare  fay,  never  happened  to  our  Examiner)  to 
"account  for  this  Aclion  on  the  Foot  of  its  being  a  Trial  only*." 
But  to  prove  furthei  that  I  fald  not  true,  when  I  faid,  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  common- Interpretation  the  Command  ivas  given  for  a  Trial 
only  ;  he  obfervcs,  that  I  myfelf  had  owned  that  the  Refemblance  to 
Chrifl's  Sacrifice  was  fojlrong,  that  Interpreters  could  never  overlook  it. 
How  much  this  is  to  the  Purpofe,  iinlefs  we  allow  Abraham's 
Knowledge  of  tlie  Figure,  has  been  fecn  already.  Nor  does  he  ap- 
pear to  be  lefs  confcious  of  its  Impertinence;  therefore,  inlTiead  of 
attempting  to  inforcc  it  to  the  Purpofe  for  which  he  quotes  it,  he 
turns,  all  on  a  fudden,  to  ihew  that  it  makes  nothing  to  the  Pur- 
pofe for  wVxch  I  employed  it.  But  let  us  follow  this  Proteus  through 
all  his  Windings. — "The  Refemblance  (ftys  he),  no  doubt,  \svery 
"  ftrong :  but  how  this  corroborates  your  Senfe  of  the  Command,  I 
*'do  not  fee.  Your  Senfs  is,  that  it  was  an  actual  Information 
"  given  to  Abraham,  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrifi.  But  to  prefigure, 
"  and  to  inform,  are  different  Things.  This  Tranfadlon  might  pre- 
'■'figure,  and  docs  prefigure,  the  Sacrifice  oi  Chrifi ',  whether  Abra- 
*'  ham  knew  any  tiling  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrifi  or  no.  For  ltdo;s 
"  jiot  follow,  that  becaufe  a  Thing  is  prefigured;  therefore  it  muft 
"  be  feen  and  underfiood,  at  the  Time  when  it  is  prefigured  -)-." 
Could  it  have  been  believed  that  thefe  Words  (hould  immediately 
follow  an  Argument,  whofe  Force,  that  little  it  has,  is  founded  on 
the  Principle,  That  to  prefigure  and  to  inform  are  not  different  Things? 

*  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  ]I.  p.  614,  note  ''.     [See  Vol.  III.  p.   372,   Ed.  410.] 
t  Conlid,  p.  150,    151. 

But 


43^  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

But  Retrofpcas,  with  bad  Reckoners,  nre  troublefome  Things.  At 
this  Kate,  I  fliould  fooa  find  my  Tafk  double.  I  fhall  therefore 
take  his  Accounts  as  they  he.  And  if  they  betray  themfelves, 
why  fo.  He  fays  tlien,  •'  he  does  not  fee  how  this  corroborates 
•'  my  Senfe,  becaufe  to  prefigure  and  to  Inform  are  different  Things." 
It  was  that  very  Difference  which  made  me  call  it  a  Corroboration  of 
my  Senfe.  Had  there  been  m  Difference,  I  fnould  not  have  called 
it  a  Corroboration  of  my  Senfe,  but  my  very  Senfe  itfelf.  As  to  the 
Obfervation  that  follows,  and  the  Explanation  of  it,  all  he  fays  is 
very  true.  But  a  Truth  the  mofi:  unlocked  for;  i.  Becaufe  it  is  a 
Truth  I  myfelf  had  much  inculcated  throughout  The  Divine  Lega- 
tion. 2.  Becaufe  it  is  a  full  Anfwer  to  all  he  has  hlmfelf  urged 
in  the  Body  of  his  Pamphlet  for  a  future  State's  being  known  or 
taught  to  the  Jewiff  People.  3.  Becaufe  (as  is  hinted  at  above) 
it  is  as  full  an  Anfwer  to  the  very  Queftion  we  are  upon,  viz. 
Whether,  according  to  the  common  Opinion,  the  Command  was 
given  only  to  try  Abraham  ;  or  whether  both  to  try  and  to  prefigure, 
&c.  Now  I  was  there  fpeaking  of  the  Command,  as  given  to 
Abraham.  Therefore  to  prefigure  could  not  be  one  End,'  becaufe  it 
was  not  to  infiorm. 

XIV. 

But  we  are  yet  only  in  the  Skirts  of  his  Argument,  on  which, 
indeed,  I  have  fat  too  long.  "  Thus  much  (Jays  he)  being  obferved 
•*  to  PREVENT  Confufion*."  This  puts  me  in  Mind  of  the  Con- 
fiable,  who  being  called  in  to  appeafe  a  Quarrel,  firfl:  knocked  down 
every  one  he  met;  and  then  Aiid,  "Thus  much  to  prevent  Dlf- 
"  order."  For  the  Reader  fees  all  the  Confufiion  is  of  his  own  mak- 
ing ;  and  that,  I  have  Reafon  to  fear,  will  keep  rifing  by  every 
new  Obfiervation.  "  Let  us  now  ffays  he)  attend  to  your  Argu- 
gumentf."     Indeed  it  is  time  ;  and    fo,  without  more  Ceremony 

*  Conficl.  p.  151.  f  Ibid. 

take 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  43 

fake  It.  One  of  my  Proofs  ngainfl;  the  common  Iiitcrprctntlon  was, 
that  acconrmg  to  ihat  there  was  110  Reward  fubfcnueiit  to  the 
Triah  To  which  he  anlwcr?,  "  But  liow  can  you  prove  that, 
"  according  to  the  common  Interpretation,  there  was  no  Reward 
"  lubfcquent  to  the  Trial  *  ?"  Mow  fhall  I  be  able  to  pleafe  him  ? 
Before  he  was  offended  that  I  fuppofed  the  Author  of  the  Book  of 
Gencjis  might  omit  relating  the  Mcdc  of  a  Fa£l,  when  lie  had  good 
Reafon  +  ^o  to  do.  Here,  bccaufe  I  fuppofe  no  Fa^,  from  there 
being  none  recorded,  when  no  Reafon  hindered,  he  is  as  captious 
on  this  Side.  ♦'  How  will  you  prove  it  ?  ffays  he).  From  the  Si- 
lence of  the  Hiftorian,  {zy  I,  when  nothing  hindered  him  from 
fpeaking.  Well,  but  he  will  fliew  it  fairly  recorded  in  Scripture, 
that  there  ijcere  Rtivards  fubfequent  to  the  Trial.  This,  indeed  is 
to  the  Purpofe  :  ««  Abraham  ffays  he)  lived  a  great  many  Years 
"  after  that  Tranfaftion  happened.  He  lived  to  difpofe  of  his  Son 
"  Ifaac  in  Marriage,  and  to  fee  his  Seed.  He  lived  to  be  married 
"  himfelf  to  another  Wife,  and  to  have  feveral  Children  by  her  ; 
"  he  had  not  then  received  all  God's  Mercies,  nor  were  all  God's 
"  Difpenfations  towards  him  at  an  End  ;  and  it  is  to  be  remem- 
"  bered  that  it  is  expreffly  faid  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xxiv.  i.  (a  long 
"  Time  after  the  Tranfaclion  in  Queftion)  ihat  God  had  bhjfed  him  in 
"  al!  Things  ];."  The  Queftion  here  is,  of  the  exiraordimry^ndt  un- 
common Rewards  beftowed  by  God  on  Abraham\  and  he  decides 
upon  it,  by  an  Enumeration  of  the  ordinary  and  common.  And, 
to  fill  up  the  Mcafure  of  thefe  Bleflings,  he  makes  the  marrying 
of  another  Wife  one.  Though  unluckily,  this  Wife  at  laft  proves 
but  a  Concubine ;  as  appears  plainly  from  the  Place  where  fhe  is 
mentioned.  But  let  me  aflt  him  ferioufly  ;  Could  he,  indeed,  fup- 
pofe me  to  mean  (though  he  attended  not  to  the  Drift  of  the  Ar- 
gument) that  God  immediately  withdrew  all  his  Favours  from  the 

*  Confid.  p.  151. 

f  See  the   Reafon  affigiied,  Div.Leg.Vol.il.  p,  6io.    [Vol.111.   Book  VI.  §  5.] 

X  Confid.  p.  151,   152. 

Father 


4-         REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Father  of  the  Fnithfiil,  after  the  lafl:  great  Reward  he  conferred 
upon  him,  though  he  lived  many  Years  after  ?  I  can  hardly,  I 
confefs,  account  for  this,  any  otherwife  than  from  a  certain  Turn 
of  Mind  which  I  don't  care  to  give  a  Name  to  :  But  which,  the 
Habit  of  anfwering  has  made  fo  common  that  nobody  either  mif- 
takes  it,  or  is  much  fcandalized  at  it.  Though  I,  for  rny  Part, 
fliould  efteem  a  total  Ignorance  of  Letters  a  much  happier  Lot  than 
fuch  a  learned  Depravity.  "  But  this  is  not  all,"  (fays  he.) — No  ?  I 
am  forry  for  it !  'Twas  enough  la  Confcience  ! — "  What  furprizes 
"  me  mofl:  is,  that  you  fhould  argue  so  weakly,  as  if  the  Reward 
"  of  good  Men  had  Refped  to  this  Life  only.  Be  it,  that  Abraham 
"  had  received  all  God's  Mercies  ;  and  that  all  God's  Difpenfations 
**  towards  him,  in  this  World,  were  at  an  End  ;  was  there  not  a 
"  Life  yet  to  come,  with  Refpeft  to  which  the  whole  Period 
*'  of  our  Exiftence  here  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  State  of  Trial  ;  and 
"  where  we  are  all  of  us  to  look  for  that  Reward  of  our  Virtues 
*■'■  which  we  very  often  fail  of  in  this*?"  Well,  if  it  was  not 
ALL,  we  find,  at  leaft,  'twas  all  of  a  Piece.  For  as  before  he 
would  fophiftically  obtrude  upon  us  cammon,  for  extraordinary  Re~ 
•wards ;  fo  here,  (true  to  the  Genius  of  his  Trade)  he  puts  common 
for  extraordinary  Trials.  The  Cafe,  to  which  I  applied  my  Argu- 
ment, was  this ; — God,  determining  to  feleft  a  chofen  People  from 
the  Loins  of  Abraham,  would  manifeft  to  the  World  that  this  Pa- 
triarch was  worthy  of  the  Diflindion  fliewn  him,  by  having  his 
Faith  found  fuperior  to  the  hardeft  Trials.  In  fpeaklng  of  thefe 
7'rials,  1  faid,  that  the  Command  to  offer  Ifaac  was  the  lajl.  "  No, 
"/zyj  the  Examiner,  that  cannot  be,  for,  with  Refpedt  to  a  Life  to 
"  come,  the  whole  Period  of  our  Exiftence  here,  is  to  be  confidered 
"  as  a  State  of  Trial."  And  fo  again,  (fays  he)  with  Regard  to 
the  Reward;  which  you  pretend,  in  the  Order  of  God's  Difpenfa- 
tions, fhould  follow  the  Trial :  Why  ?  We  are  to  "  look  after  it 
"  in  another  World."— Holy  Scripture  records  the  Hiftory  of  one. 


to 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  433 

to  whom  God  only  promifed  (in  the  clear  and  obvious  Senfc) 
temporal  Bleflings.  It  records,  that  thefe  temporal  Blcflings 
were  difpenfed.  One  Species  of  which  were  extraordinary  Re- 
wards after  extraordinary  Trials.  In  the  mofl:  extraordinary  of 
nil,  no  Reward  followed :  This  was  my  Difficulty.  See  here, 
how  he  has  cleared  it  up. — I  would  willingly  believe  the  beft  : 
Yet  the  bringing  in  a  future  State  (no  more  to  clearing  up  the 
Difficulty  than  a  future  Pai-liament)  locks  fo  very  like,  what  tiic 
Logicians  call,  Argumentum  ad  Invidiam,  that  I  don't  know  whe- 
ther I  fhall  bring  the  Reader  to  believe  with  me.  "  What  fur- 
"  prizes  me  mofl  (fay^  be)  is,  that  you  (hould  argue  fo  weakly." — - 
Weakly,  does  he  fay  ?  Let  him  fpeak  out,  and  rather  fay  wickedly  ; 
which  is  indeed  what  he  would  have  the  Reader  underftand,  though 
in  Tendernefs  he  prefers  a  fofter  Word  :  For  he  roundly  aflerts, 
that  /  have  argued  as  if  the  Reward  of  good  Men  had  refpeSi  to  this 
Life  only.  I  had  faid,  indeed,  frequently  faid,  that  mnny  good 
Men  had  no  Refpeft  to  any  other  Reward  ;  but  that  the  Reward  of 
good  Men  had  refpeSl  to  this  Life  only,  I  not  only  never  faid,  but 
even  abhor  the  Thoughts  of.  I  muft  therefore  call  upon  my  Ex- 
aminer, for  this  jFS)(IIEC!i)  C3IS^(JB,  to  prove  that  I  ever  argued 
in  that  Manner,  on  Pain  of  pafling  for  a  Calumniator. 

XV. 

But  he  feems  to  be  fenfible  of  his  bad  Argument ;  whatever 
might  be  his  Intention  in  ufing  it ;  and  would  favc  all  by  ano- 
ther Fetch  :  For  the  weakefl  are  ever  mofl  mof>  fruitful  in  Ex- 
pedients. "  And  what  (fays  he)  If,  after  all  this,  the  Wifdom  of 
*'  God  fhould  have  thought  fit,  that  this  very  Man,  whom  he 
"  had  finglcd  out  to  be  an  eminent  Example  of  Piety  to  all  Ge- 
•'  neratlons,  fhould,  at  the  very  Clofe  of  his  Life,  give  Evidence 
"  of  it,  by  an  Inftance  that  exceeded  all  that  had  gone  before  ; 
"  that  he  might  be  a  Pattern  of  patient  Suffering,  even  unto  the 
"End?     Would  there  not  be  Sense  in   fuch  a  Suppohtlon  *  ?" 

*  Confid.  p.  153. 

Vol.  VI.  K  k  k  In 


43+  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

In  Truth,  I  doubt  not,  as  he  has  put  it :  And  I  will  tell  him-, 
whv.  Abraham  was  not  a  mere  Infirument  to  ftand  for  an  Example 
only,  but  a  moral  Agent  likewile ;  and  to  be  dealt  with  as  fuch. 
Now,  though,  as  he  ftands  for  an  Example^  we  may  admit  of  as  many 
Trials  for  patient  Suffering  as  our  good-natured  Examiner  thinks 
fitting;  yet,  as  a  moral  Agent ^  it  is  required  (as  I  have  prov- 
ed from  the  Method  of  God's  dealing  with  his  Servants,  re- 
corded in  facrcd  Hiftory)  that  each  Trial  be  attended  with  fome 
Work  done,  or  fome  Reward  conferred.  But  thefe  two  Circumr 
ftances  in  Ahrahavis  Charafter,  our  Examiner  perpetually  con- 
founds. He  fuppofes  nothing  to  be  done  for  Abraham'' s  own  Sake ; 
but  every  Thing  for  the  Example's  Sake.  Yet,  did  the  good  Caufe 
o(  anptvering  require,  he  could  as  eafily  fuppofe  the  contrary.  And 
that  1  do  him  no  Wrong,  I  will  here  give  the  Reader  a  remarkable 
Inflance  of  this  Dexterity,  in  the  Counter-exercife  of  his  Arms.  In 
p.  150,  of  thtfe  Cofi/ic/eraiions,  (be /ays)  "  it  does  not  follow, 
"  that,  becaufe  a  Thing  is  prefigured,  therefore  it  muft  be  feeii 
'«  and  underftood  at  the  time  when  it  is  prefigured."  Yet  in 
the  Body  of  the  Pamphlet,  p.  112,  113,  having  another  Point  to 
puzzle  ;  he  fays  (on  my  obferving  that  a  future  State  and  Refurrec- 
tlon  were  not  national  Dodtrines  till  the  Time  of  the  Maccabees  J 
"  he  knows  I  will  fay  they  had  thefe  Dodrines  from  the  Prophets — 

*'  vet  the  Prophets  were  dead  two  hundred  Years  before." But 

if  the  Prophets  were  dead,  their  Writings  were  extant — "  And 
"  what  then  ?  is  it  likely  that  the  Sons  fliould  have  learnt  from 
*'  the  dead  Prophets,  what  the  Fathers  could  not  learn  from  the 
*'  Living?— Why  could  not  the  Jews  learn  this  Doflrine  from 
*'  THE  VERY  FIRST,  as  Well  as  their  Poflerity  at  the  Diftance 
"  of  Ages  afterwards,"  In  the  firft  Cafe  we  find  he  exprefsly  fays, 
it  does  not  follow't  in  the  fecond,  he  as  plainly  fuppofes,  that  // 
docs. 


XVI. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS,  435 

XVI. 

"  But  there  are  other  Ohje£tions  bcfides  this  (he  Jap)  to  my 
"  Interpretation  of  the  Command  :  As  firfl:  It  doth  not  appear  how 
"  Abraham  could  colled  from  this  Tranfadlion,  that  Cbri/l  was  to 
*'  be  offered  up  as  a  Sacrifice.  I  can  eafily  undcrftand  that  Cu/rj^r/I' 
*'  may  be  maintained  by  ASlions  as  well  as  by  JVords.  VViiat  you 
"  have  faid  upon  tiiat  Subjed,  p.  81  *,  Gfc,  no  doubt  is  very  juH: ; 
**  and  the  Inftances  you  have  produced  from  Scripture,  where  Ac- 
"  tlons  have  been  ufed  as  forcfhewing  the  Determinations  of  Pro- 
*'  vidence,  are  beyond  all  Exception.  But  whereas  you  have  cou- 
*<  fidered  the  A6tion  of  Abraham  in  offering  up  his  Son  as  a  Cafe 
"  parallel  to  thcfe  ;  it  differs  from  them  all  in  a  very  material  Cir- 
"  cumflance,  "ch.  that  nothing  is  here  added  by  Way  of  Tixplana- 
"  nation  ioJJjezv  the  Import  of  it.  When  Zedekiah  made  him  horns 
*'  of  Iron,  he  faid, — TiwJsJJjalt  thou  pitfi  the  Syrians,  i  Kings  xxii. 
•'  I  r.  When  Jeremiah  was  bid  to  take  a  Linen  Girdle  and  hide  it 
"  in  the  Hole  of  a  Rock,  &c.  the  Explanation  immediately  follows  : — 
«'  Thus  faith  the  Lord,  after  this  Manner  liill  I  mar  the  Pride 
*'  o/'Judah,  ^c.  Jeremiah  xili.  i — 9.  And  fo  it  is  in  fi'^ry  Inflance 
"  you  have  produced  ;  which  I  need  not  particularly  prove  bccaufe 
*'  you  have  coijfeffed  it,  p.  609  -f-..  And  no  doubt  fuch  Explanations, 
*'  attending  the  Tranf;idion,  were  always  neceffary  for  the  Infor- 
*'  mation  of  the  Prophet ;  becaufe  though  Anions  are  as  expreffive 
'*  of  Lleas  as  JVords  are ;  yet  it  is  on  Suppofition  that  there  is  ei- 
"  ther  common  life,  or  fpecial  Intimation,  to  determine  li'hat  Ideas 
'■'fuch  or  fuch  Adions  import ;  otherwife  nothing  can  be  under- 
*'  flood.  You  will  not  pretend,  I  fuppofe,  that  by  any  common 
"  Vfdge  of  thofe  Times,  this  Tranfadion  was  fgnifcative  of  the 
"  Sacrifice  of  Chrijl ;  therefore  there  muft  have  been  fome  fpeciai 
"  Intimation  attending  the  Tranfadion,  and  determining  it  to  this 
"  Meaning,  if  It  was  the  Intention  of  Providence,  hereby  to  give 
*'  Abraham  any  fuch  Information  ;  of  which  fpecial  Intimation  fince 

*  Ed.  4to,  vol.  II.  p.  405.  t  td.  4to.  vol.  HI.  p.  392. 

K  k  k  2  "  nothing 


436  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
«•  nothing  appears^  it  can  never  appear  that  any  fuch  Information 
"  was  intended.  The  Piefumption  lies  the  other  Way :  Becaufe 
"  if  anv  fuch  Information  had  been  intended  ;  it  is  natural  to  think 
♦«  that'the  Explanation  would  have  been  recorded  with  the  Tranf- 
"  atlkn,  as  it  is  in  all  other  fuch  like  Cafes  *."  This,  indeed, 
flands  unequalled,  even  by  himfelf.  In  The  Divine  Legation,  I  had 
fhewn  tlie  Nature  of  this  fignificative  Adion  here  commanded; — I 
had  fliewn  how  it  agreed,  and  how  it  differed,  from  others  of  the  fame 

Kliid 1  had  flievvn  how  Abraham  mufl  neceffarily  underfland  the 

Import  of  it.  Yet  here,  the  Examiner  comes  over  me  with  an  Ob- 
jedion,  that  implies  a  profound  Ignorance  of  every  thing  I  had  faid. 
I  would  fain  inftrud  him  ;  but  if  he  chufes  rather  to  be  fhamed  ; 
why,  every  Man  to  his  Tafte.  He  fays,  I  confider  the  Information 
by  A£tion  in  the  c^t/^  o/"  Abraham  as  parallel  X.o  the  Information  given 
to,  or  by  the  Prophets  Zedekiah  and  Jeremiah,  for  the  Inftrudion 
of  the  People:  "  Whereas  it  differs  from  them  in  a  very  material 
"  Circumftance;  namely,  that  nothing  is  here  added  by  Way  of 
"  Explanation,  to  (hew  the  Import  of  it."  Hear,  now,  whether  I 
confider  it  :\?,  parallel  ox  different — having  fpoken  of  thofe  fignifica- 
tive Aclions  done  by  the  Prophets,  at  God's  Command,  for  the 
People's  Information,  I  go  on  thus.  By  thefe  ABions  the  Prophets  in- 
llrudcd  the  People  in  the  Will  of  God— but  where  God  teaches 
THE  Prophet,  and,  in  Compliance  to  the  Cii/lofn  of  that  Time,  con- 
defcends  ta  the  fame  Mode  of  InfriiSlion,  then  the  f.gnifcative  Ac- 
tion is  generally  changed  into  a  Vifon,  either  natural  or  extraordi- 
nary— I  jay  generally,  but  not  always.  Sometimes,  though  the  In- 
formation  nvas  only  for  the  Prophet,  God  would  set  him  upon  an 
expreffive  Atlion,  whofe  obvious  Meaning  cojiveyed  the  Intelligence 
propofed  or  fought  \.  I  therefore  call  upon  him  here  again,  the 
5F3iifC^  CSlr^^iB,  to  prove  that  I  confidered  them  2^%  parallel ;  or 
elfe  to  make  his  Retradation.  He  fays,  "  he  fuppofes,  I  will  not 
**  pretend  that,  by  any  common  Ufage  of  thofe  Times,  this  Tranf- 

*   Confid.  p.   153,   154. 

■J-  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  H.  p,  83,  84.     [Vol.  II.  p.  406,  4©;,  ed.  4to.] 

«*  adion 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.        437 

"  a£lion  was  fignificative  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Cbrljl"  All  that  I 
pretended  lo^  I  delivered  in  very  plain  Terms,  in  the  following 
Manner.  From  the  Vietv  given  of  Abraham's  Hijlory,  ivefce^  hciv 
all  God's  Revelations  to  kirn,  to  this  lajl  [of  the  Command]  uUimalely 
relate  to  that  myftic  fundamental  Promijey  made  to  him  on  hisfirft  Vo- 
cation, that  in  him  Ihould  all  Families  of  the  Earth  be  bleflcd.  God 
opens  the  Scheme  of  his  Difpenfations.,  by  exa£l  and  regular  Steps-  ■- 
We  fee,  throughout^  a  gradual  Opening  and  ft  Preparation  for  fome 
farther  Revelation,  which — could  be  no  other  than  that  of  the  Redemp- 
tion— the  Completion  of  the  Whole  of  Qjd's  Oeconomy — But  the  only 
remaining  one  recorded— is  the  Command  to  offer  Ifaac. — Now  the 
Happinefs  or  Redemption  of  Mankind,  promifed  to  come  through  Abra- 
ham, could  not  but  make  him  more  and  more  inquifitive  into  the  Man- 
ner of  its  being  brought  about,  in  Proportion  as  he  found  himfelf  to  be 
more  and  more  perfonally  concerned,  as  the  Infrument  of  fo  great  a 
BleJJitig. — We  have  fjewn  it  to  be  the  Cuflom  of  Antiquity  to  infruB 
by  Aclions  as  well  as  Words — that  God  himfelf,  in  Compliance  to  a  ge- 
neral Cufom,  ufed  this  Way  of  hformation. — Nothing  could  be  con- 
ceived more  appofite  to  convey  the  Information  than  this  very  Adtion  ; 
Abraham  desired  earnestly  to  be  let  into  the  Mfiery  of  the 
Redemption,  and  God,  to  infruSi  him — faid.  Take  now  thy  Son, 
^c.  The  Duration  of  the  Action  was  the  fame  as  between  Ch  rift's 
Death  and  RefurreSlion,  &c  *. — Could  Abraham  now,  after  this, 
be  any  more  in  Doubt,  that  this  Command  was  to  prefigure  the 
Sacrifice  of  Chrifl ;  than  Ezekiel,  that  what  he  faw  in  the  Chambers 
of  Imagery  was  to  reprefent  the  Idolatries  of  his  Countrymen  ?  But 
our  Examiner  artfully  concealed,  that  I  had,  all  along,  fuppofed 
from  the  Proofs  given,  that  this  Revelation  was  ♦*  made  at  y/^/-^?- 
*'  hanis  earnefl;  Requeft :"  And  then  alks,  Whether  *'  by  any 
**  common  Ufage  this  Tranfadtion  was  fignificative  of  the  Sacrifice 
*'  of  Chriji."  If  not,  he  fays,  there  muft  have  been  fome  fpecial 
**  Intimation  determining  it  to  tliii  Meai'ing  :  Of  which,  fince  no- 

*  See  Divine  Legation,  Vol.  II.  p.  606,  &  feq.    [Vol.  III.  p.  385.  ccl.  .54:0.] 

'*  tliing 


4^5  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

"  thing  appears,  it  can  never  appear  that  any  fuch  Information 
"  w.is  intended.  The  Prefumption  lies  the  other  Way,  becaufe  if 
«'  any  fuch  Intimation  had  been  intended,  it  is  natural  to  think,  the 
*'  Explanation  would  have  been  recorded  with  the  Tranfadlion,  as 
*•  it  is  in  ALL  other  fuch  like  Cafes."  Here  again,  he  honeflly 
conceals  from  his  Reader,  that  I  had  given  two  Reafotis,  why  the 
Explanation  was  not  recorded.  The  one  arifing  from  this  Species 
ci  Information  ;  the  other,  from  the  Nature  of  the  Thing  informed 
of  The  firfl:  was,  that  the  Narrative  of  fuch  a  Converfe  by  ASlion 
was  not,  in  its  Nature,  fo  intelligible  or  obvious,  as  that  where  God  is 
/Ijeivn  converjing  by  Action  to  the  Prophets,  in  the  feveral  Inftanccs 
before  given.  And  the  Reafon  is  this :  Thofe  Informations,  as  they 
are  given  to  the  Prophets  for  the  Inflru^ion  of  the  People,  have,  necef 
farily,  in  the  Courfe  of  the  HiJIory,  their  Explanations  annexed.  But 
ibe  Information  to  Abraham  being  folely  for  his  own  Ufe,  there  was 
no  Room  for  that  formal  Explanation  ;  which  made  the  commanded 
Anions,  performed  by  the  Prophets,  fo  clear  and  intelligible  *.  And, 
to  illuftrate  the  Truth  of  the  Obfervaticn,  I  gave  an  Example,  in 
the  Relation  of  Jacob's  wrcjiling  with  the  Angel.  Which  (like  this 
of  the  Command)  was  an  Information  by  A6lion,  for  Jacob's  fole 
Ufe  :  And  therefore  has  the  fame  Obfcurity,  as  not  having  its  Ex- 
planation annexed.  I  have  fhewn  what  that  Information  was.  And 
will  he  fiy,  becaufe  the  Explanation  was  not  recorded,  that  this 
was  the  Hiftory  of  a  fimple  WrefUng,  as  that  was  of  a  commanded 
human  Sacrifice  1  Or  will  he  rather  chufe  to  retra£l  what  he  had 
faid,  that  where  it  is  an  Information  by  Aftlon,  the  Explanation  is 
always  recorded  in  fuch  like  Cafes  ? 

The /ccW  Reafon  I  gave  why  the  Explanation  was  not  recorded, 
arofe  from  the  Nature  of  the  Thing  informed  of  The  Knowledge  of 
God's  future  Difpenfation,  in  the  Redemption  of  Mankind,  by  the  Death 
of  his  Son,  revealed  as  afngular  Favour  to  the  Father  of  the  Faithful, 
V^as  (fay  I)  what  could^  by  no  Means,  be  communicated  to  the  Hebrew 

^*  DivineLegation,^Vol.  ll.p.  6u,  [Vol.  Ill,  p.  392,  ed.  410.] 

People^ 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  4:59 


fj> 


People,  'when  Mofes  wrctc  Lis  Hijiory  for  their  Ufe  ;  becauje  they  being 
then  to  continue  long  under  a  carnal  Oecotwtny,  this  Knowledge  of 
ihe  End  of  the  Law  ivoidd  have  greatly  indijpofcd  them  to  that  Dij- 
penfation  with  ivhich  God,  in  his  infinite  Wifdom,  thought  fit  to  f.\> 
crcifc  them  *." 

XVII. 

But  he  has  learnt  his  Trade  for  nothing.  Catch  an  Anfwerer 
without  his  Salvo  if  you  can.  You  may  trufl:  him  to  take  Care 
that  it  fliall  never  be  faid,  he  had  paffed  over,  in  abfolute  Silence, 
the  Anfwer  given  above  ;  he  therefore  fubjoins — *'  To  this  you  re- 
"  ply,  that  the  Information  to  Abraham  being  folely  for  his  own 
"  Ufe,  and  -which  could,  by  no  Means,  be  communicated  to  the  He- 
"  brew  People  when  Mofes  wrote  his  Hifiory  ;  there  was  no  room  for 
"  the  formal  Explanation  which  made  the  commanded  Anions  per- 
'■^  formed  by  the  PropJoetsfo  clear  and  intelligible  \^^ — To  this  (fays 
"  he)  you  reply."  To  what  ?  To  his  Objections  againft  my  In- 
terpretation ;  which  are  thefe — "  That  nothing  is  added  by  way  of 
"  Explanation — that  this  Tranfa£lion  was  not,  by  any  commcii 
*'  Ufage  of  thofe  Times,  fignificative  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrif — 
"  that  if  any  fuch  Information  had  been  intended,  it  is  natural  to 
"  think  that  the  Explanation  would  have  been  recorded  with  the 
"  Tranfadion." — Had  he  given  but  a  common  Attention  to  what  I 
wrote,  he  would  have  feen,  that  the  Anfwer,  he  here  quotes  from 
me,  was  a  Reply  to  quite  a  different  Thing  ;  namely.  Why  the  fijcred 
Writer  did  not,  for  the  1' for  mat  ion  of  the  Jewifli  Church,  give  an  Ex- 
planation of  the  fignificative  Aclion.  In  the  mean  Time,  tlie  Reply  I 
made  to  his  three  Objections,  he  flill  referves  in. profound  Silence. 
I  have  quoted  it  above,  and  it  is  in  Subftance  this,  T^hat  where  the 
commanded  ASlion  .':  for  the  Information  of  the  Prophet  only,  there  no 

*  Div.  Leg.  Vol.  II,  p.  6io.     [Vol,  III.  p.  391,  cd.  4to.J 
t  Cofid.  p.  155. 

Ex' 


440  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

Expuination  accompanies  it.— That  the  Command  being  given  at  Abra- 
ham's earnefl:  Rcqueft  to  be  further  acquainted  with  the  Myjlery  of 
the  Rcdenipt'ion,  be  inujl  needs  fee  (thougli  the  Tranfadion  was  not,  by 
any  common  Ul'age  of  thofe  Times,  fignificatlve  of  the  Sacrifice  of 
Chrijl)  the  true  and  real  Import  of  it. — I  had  fald,  that  our  Examiner 
could  not  have  been  thus  grofly  miftaken  had  he  given  a  common 
Attention  to  what  he  faw  written.  But  the  Reader  may  have  Rea- 
fon  to  fufpecfl  fomething  worfe,  when  he  obferves,  that,  in  quoting 
this,  wliich  he  calls  my  Reply,  he  makes  me  fay,  that,  "  as  the 
*'  Information  was  given  folely  for  Abrahan^s  \]{q,  there  was  no 
*'  Room  for  that  formal  Explanation,  which  made  the  com- 
"  MANDED  Actions  performed  by  the  Prophets  so  clear 
*'  and  INTELLIGIBLE."  Words  fo  devoid  of  all  Purpofe,  to  the 
Argument  he  pretends  I  was  there  upon,  that,  had  I  ufed  them,  or 
any  other  like  them,  I  fliould  have' been  afliamed,  after  fuch  Imper- 
tinence, to  have  appeared  again  in  Print :  Yet  we  find  they  were  to 
our  Examiner's  Pwr/o/tf  to  beftow  upon  me;  in  order  to  perfuade 
the  Reader,  that  this  was  really  a  Reply  to  his  Objedions. 

But  be  the  Reply  what  you  pleafe,  if  it  will  but  give  him  an 
Opportunity  to  anfwer,  to  examine,  to  force  a  Trade,  it  is  enough 
for  him.  He  goes  on,  therefore,  in  this  Manner,  *'  But  this  which 
'*  you  offer,  as  a  Solution  of  the  Difficulty,  is,  with  me,  a  new 
*'  Objection."  See  here  now,  do  I  belye  the  Man  } — "  For  if  the 
"  Knowledge  of  Chrifs  Sacrifice  was  not  to  be  communicated ;  to 
*'  what  Purpofe  was  it  clearly  revealed  to  Abraham  f  You  fay, 
*'  that  the  Jews,  being  to  continue  long  under  a  carnal  Oeconomy  ; 
«'  this  Knoivledge — would  have  greatly  indifpofed  them  to  this  Dif 
'■'■  petfation.  But  why  was  it  then  communicated  to  Abraham? 
"  For  hisfole  Ufe*,  you  fay." — Here  he  alks  me  a  Queftion,  then 
quotes  my  Anfwer  to  it  :  And,  not  liking  that,  afks  the  Queftion 
over  again ;  and  then  makes  an  Anfwer  for  it  himfelf,  which,  he 
thought,  he  could  manage  better.    For  let  the  Reader  take  Notice, 

*  Confid.  p.  I  jr. 

that 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  441 

that  the  hifl:  Aiifwer  Is  not  mine.  I  had  talked  very  impertinently 
indeed,  had  I  given  it  as  a  Reafon  why  the  Revelation  was  made  to 
Abraham^  and  not  given  to  the  Jews,  that  it  was  for  Abraham's 
/ok  Ufe.  I  had  proved,  indeed,  from  F^t?,  that  it  wzzforhisfole 
Ufe:  But  the  Reafon  I  gave,  for  its  not  being  communicated,  was 
the  unfit  Circumftances  and  Dlfpofition  of  the  Jewip  People  to 
receive  it.  But  what  then  ?  this  which  he  calls  the  Anjwer  docs 
its  Bufinefs ;  as  that  which  he  called  x\\zRcply  had  done  before  it ; 
and  ferves  him  for  a  Handle  to  a  new  Objection. 

And  thus  he  proceeds — "  What  Ufe  ?  Will  you  be  pleafcd  to  tell 
*'  us  ?  Was  there  any  good  Ufe  that  Abraham  could  make  of  this 
"  Knowledge,  which  the  reft  of  the  People  of  God  might  not  have 
"  made  of  it  as  well  as  he  ?  Or  if  it  was  unfit  for  every  Body  elfe, 
"  was  it  not  unfit  for  Abraham  too  *r"  Amazing  !  Had  not  I  given 
It  as  the  Reafon  why  it  could  not  be  communicated  to  the  fcivip 
People,  that  they  were  to  continue  long  under  a  burthenfome  carnal 
Oeconomy ;  which,  this  Knowledge  would  have  tempted  them  to 
throw  off  before  the  appointed  Time  ?  And  did  this  Reafon  extend  to 
Abraham^  who  was  never  under  that  Oeconomy  ? 

XVIII. 

But  he  goes  on — *'  In  fhort.  Sir,  I  do  not  underftand  this  Doc- 
*'  trine  (with  which  your  whole  Work  much  abounds)  of  revealing 
*'  Things  clearly  to  Patriarchs,  and  Prophets,  and  Leaders,  as  a 
*'  fpecial  Favour  to  themfclves ;  but  to  be  kept  as  a  Secret  from  the 
"  reft  of  Mankind." — It  is  but  too  plain  (as  he  fays)  "he  does  not 
*'  underftand  it  :"  For  which  I  can  give  no  better  Reafon  than  Its 
hdng  Scripture-DodtrinL",  and  not  that  of  Sums  and  Syflcms.  Yet 
what  he  cannot  underjland^  his  Client  Blfliop  Bull  could,  how- 
ever :  who  (as  he  hlmfelf  informs  us)  aflerts,  "  that  there  were 
»'  Arcana  in  the  few'p  Theology,    and  confequently  a  twofold 

*    Confid.  p.  155. 

Vol.  VI.  L  1 1  "  manner 


442  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

«'  manner  of  teaching  amongft  them;  one  luited  to  vulgar  Appre- 
"  hcnllons;  the  other  to  thofe  who  liad  made  fome  Proficiency  in 
"  Knowledge."  Exam,  of  Mr.  VV's  fecond  Propoftiion,  p.  125.  So 
that  1  afcribe  this  rather  to  a  want  oi Memory  than  want  of  Under- 
Jland'wg. 

»'  I  have  been  uled  (Jays  he)  to  confider  Perfons  under  this  Cha- 
"  rafter,  as  appointed,  not  for  themfelves,  but  for  others  ;  and 
♦'  therefore  to  conclude  that  whatever  was  clearly  revealed  to 
"them,  concerning  God's  Difpenfiicions,  was  fo  revealed,  in  order 
*'  to  be  communicated  to  others  *."  This  is  the  old  hacknied 
Sophifm  ;  that,  becaufe  Perfons  a£l  and  are  employed  for  others  ; 
therefore  they  do  nothing,  or  that  nothing  is  done  for  thcmfehes. 
When  God  faid.  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  that  Thing  which  I  do  ? 
was  not  this  faid  to,  and  for  hlmfelf  ?  But  he  finks  and  flounders 
tinders  this  falfe  Bottom,  That  whatever  was  clearly  r.  vealed  to  the 
Prophets,  ivas  fo  revealed,  in  order  to  be  communicated  to  others. 
Here  then  a  little  Scripture-DoSlrine  will  do  him  no  Harm.  Did 
Mofes  (and  this  is  a  Cafe  in  Point)  communicate  all  he  knew  to 
t!ie  Jews,  concerning  the  Chrifian  Difpenfation-,  which  the  Author 
of  the  Epifle  to  the  Hebrews  tells  us  was  clearly  revealed  to  him  in 
the  Mount  ? — Priejls  (fays  he)  that  offer  Gifts  according  to  the  Law, 
ivhoferve  unto  the  Example  and  Shadow  of  heavenly  Things,  as  Mofes 
was  admonijhed  of  God  ivhen  he  was  about  to  make  the  Tabernacle  f. 
Again,  we  find  that  Ezt'-^/V/,  on  his  being  called  upon  his  Mifilon, 
law,  what  the  Author  of  Ecclus  calls  the  glorious  Vi/ion;  and  had 
(as  appears  from  the  Allegory  of  the  Roll  of  a  Book)  a  full  Inter- 
pretation thereof.  Yet,  notwithflanding  all  his  Illumination,  he 
was  direded  by  God  to  fpeak  fo  obfcurely  to  the  People,  that  he  at 
length  found  Caufe  to  complain,  Ah,  Lord,  they  fay  of  me  ^  path  he 
not  fpeak  Parables  \  ?  And  now  let  him  afk  the  Prophets  v\  ith  the 
fame  Pertnefs  he  is  accuftomed  to  examine  me,  fFas  there  any  good 
Vfe  you  could  make  of  your  Knowledge,  that  the  People  of  God  might 

•  Confid.p.  155,  156.  I  Hcb.  viii.  4,  s.  %  Ezek.  xx,  49. 

not 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  443 

twt  have  made  of  it  as  xvell  as  you  ? — But  tlie  fame  Difpciifatioii  is 
alluded  to,  and  continued^  under  the  Kingdom  of  C/.>r//i — And  his 
Difciples  aiked  him  laying,  ff/jat  might  this  Parable  be?  And  he 
faid,  Unto  you  it  is  given  to  knoiv  the  MyJIeries  of  the  Kingdom  of  Cod: 
But  toothers,  in  Parables',  that  feeing  they  might  not  fee,  and  hear- 
ing they  might  not  tmderfland*.  And  now,  Reader,  (hall  I  claim 
his  Prcmife  ?  *'  If  you  can  ftiew  (fays  he)  that  I  am  miftaken  in 
*'  this,  pray  do  it,  and  I  fhall  be  obliged  to  you  f-"  For,  you  fee, 
I  have  taken  him  at  his  Word.  And 'twas  wcUI  did  ;  for  it  was 
no  fooner  out  of  his  Mouth,  than,  as  if  he  had  repented  (not  of  his 
Candour,  but  his  Confidence)  he  immediately  cries.  Hold — and 
tells  me  "  1  might  have  fpared  myfelf  in  alking  another  Q^ftion, 
"  Why,  if  Revelations  cannot  be  clearly  recorded,  are  they  recorded  at 
all  |."  But,  great  Defender  of  the  Faith — of  the  ancient  Jewifli  Church  I 
I  afked  that  very  ^eflion,  becaufe  the  Anfwer  to  it  fliews  how 
much  you  are  mijlahen ;  as  the  intelligent  Reader,  by  this  Time, 
eafily  perceives.  But  why  does  he  fay  I  might  have  fpared  that 
^lejlion?  becaufe,  ♦'  if  a  Revelation  is  not  clearly  given,  it  cannot 
*'  be  clearly  recorded  §."  Did  I  fay  it  could?  Or  will  he  fay,  that 
there  are  no  Reafons  why  a  Revelation,  that  is  clearly  given,  fliould 
be  obfcurely  recorded  ?  To  what  Purpofe  then,  was  the  Obferva- 
tion  made  ?  Made  !  why  to  introduce  another.  For,  with  our 
equivocal  Examiner,  the  Corrupiion  of  Argument  is  the  Generation  of 
Obfervation. — "  And  yet  ffm  he)  as  you  intimate,  there  may  be 
*'  Reafons  why  an  obscure  Revelation  fhould  be  recorded,  to 
«<  wit,  for  the  Indruclion  of  future  Ages,  when  the  Obfcurity  being 
*'  cleared  up  by  the  Event,  it  fliall  appear,  that  it  was  forcfcen  and 
*'  fore-ordained  in  the  Knowledge  and  Appointment  of  God  |j.'" 

What  I  intimated,  was  not  concerning  an  obfcure  Revelation,  but 
a  Revel.itlcn  obfcurely  recorded.  Thefe  are  two  very  different  Tilings, 
as  appears  from  hence,  that  the  latter  may  be  a  clear  Revelaiicn,  the 

*  Luke  viii.  9,   10. 

t  Confid.p.  X56.  \  Ibid.  §  Ibid.  H  Ibid. 

L  1  1  2  Word 


4U  RExMARKS     ON     SEVERAL 

Word  being  relative  to  him  to  whom  the  Revelation  was  made  r 
but  this  is  a  Peccadillo  only.  However,  he  approves  the  Reafon  of 
recording;  for  that,  thereby,  "it  fhall  appear,  that  it  was  fore- 
*'  feen  and  foreordained  by  God."  It — what  ?  the  obfcure  Revela- 
tion, according  to  grammatical  Conftrudion  :  But,  in  his  EngUfi^ 
I  fuppofe,  IT  Hands  for  the  Fact  revenled.  Well  then  ;  from  the 
recording  of  an  obfcure  Revelation,  he  fays  it  will  appear,  when 
the  foretold  Fa6t  happens,  that  it  was  fortfeen  and  preordained  by- 
God.  This  too  he  tells  the  Reader  I  intimated \  but,  if  the  Reader 
will  take  my  Word,  I  never  intimated  any  thing  fo  foolifh.  For 
every  Faft,  whether  prefigured  and  foretold,  or  not  prefigured  and 
foretold,  muft  needs  have  been  ^orefeen  and  preordained  by  God. 
Now,  whether  we  are  to  attribute  this  to  Exadlnefs,  or  to  Inaccu- 
ran  of  Expreffion,  is  hard  to  fay.  If  to  the  former,  it  is  to  be 
confidered  as  one  of  his  Arts,  to  get  to  a  Ccnfequence  which  he 
immediately  afterwards  endeavours  to  deduce  from  it  ;  which  is, 
"  that,  as  well  on  his  Senfe  of  the  Command,  as  on  mine,  a  De- 
*'  pendency  between  the  two  Difpenfations  may  be  deduced."  And 
it  is  certain,  that  if  that  Dependency  arifes  from  God's  Foreknow- 
ledge of  the  Faft,  he  is  much  in  the  right ;  but  that  will  be  feen 
by  and  by.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  an  Inaccuracy^  as  I  am 
rather  inclined  to  think ;  then  it  is  plain  he  muft  mean  fomething 
elfe ;  and  t\\zt  fomething  might,  perhaps,  be  this  ;  that,  from  fuch 
a  Record,  a  real  Connexion  might  be  proved  between  the  Old  and 
New  Tef^ament,  arifing  from  the  Evidence  that  God,  in  this 
commanded  A(flion,  did  intend  to  prefigure  the  Sacrifice  of  CZir^. 
— Joft  before,  he  had  faid,  "  he  defired  not  to  be  miftaken  *."  But 
this,  let  me  tell  him,  is  an  unreafonable  Requeft,  unlefs  he  defired 
too  to  be  underjiood.  And  that  he  defires  not  this,  is  evident  from 
his  perpetual  Equivocations.  However,  we  prefume,  we  have  here 
infinuated  ourfelves  into  his  Meaning.  But  if  the  Reader  now 
Ihould  aik  how  this  makes  for  the  pouit  to  be  proved,  namely,  that 

*  Confid.  p.  156. 

«'  I  might 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.       445 

*'  I  might  have  fpared  myfelf  in  afklngthe  Qucftion,  Jrhy,  ifRive- 
'<  lot'ons  cannot  be  clearly  recorded,  are  they  recorded  at  all  r"  I  mufl: 
tell  him,  and  let  him  not  be  fiirpiifcd,  that  it  was  not  defigiied  to 
have  any  thing  to  do  with  the  Point  to  be  proved,  at  all ;  but  only 
X.0  produce  or  give  Birth  to  another  Observation  ;  begot,  as  he 
well  exprefles  it,  upon  the  foregoing  putrid  Argumentation. — 
"  Upon  this  Principle  (fays  he  J  you  mufl:  give  me  leave  to  observe, 
"  thrt  the  TranHKflion  in  Queftion  will  have  the  fame  Efficacy  to 
"  fhew  the  Dependency  betiveen  the  tzvo  D'ifpenfations.  Whether 
*'  Abraham  had  thereby  any  Information  of  the  Sacrifice  oiChriJ]  or 
"  not*."  This,  indeed,  is  faying  fomething.  And,  could  he 
prove  it,  would  be  depriving  my  Interpretation  of  one  of  its  prin- 
cipal Ufes.  Let  us  fee  then  how  he  goes  about  it.  "  For  this 
*'  does  not  arife  from  Abraham  s  Knowledge,  or  any  body's 
"  Knowledge,  at  the  Time  when  the  Tranfadion  happened,  bur 
"  from  the  Similitude  and  Correfpondency  between  the  Event  and 
"  the  Tranfa«flion,  by  which  it  was  prefigured  ;  which  is  exatStiy 
"  the  fame  upon  either  Suppofition  f."  To  this  I  anfwer  and  fay, 
I.  That  I  myfelf  never  fuppofed  that  the  Dependency  between  rhe 
two  Difpenfations  did  "  arife  from  Ahraham^s  Knowledge,  or  any 
"  body's  Knowledge,"  at  that  or  any  other  Time;  but  from  God's 
Intention  that  this  commanded  Adtion  fliould  import  or  reprefenr 
the  Sacrifice  of  C^r//?  .•  And  then  comes  in  the  Queftion  whether 
X.\\7s.X.  Intention  be  befl  difcovered  from  God's  Declaration  of  it  to 
Abraham,  or  from  a  Similitude  and  Correfpondency  between  this 
commanded  Adion  and  the  Sacrifice  of  Chriji.  Therefore,  2.  I  an- 
fwer and  fay,  that  a  Similitude  and  Correspondency  ^'/lew;; 
the  Event  and  the  TranfaBion  which  prefigured  it,  is  not  enough  to 
fhew  this  Dependency  to  the  Satisfadion  of  Unbelievers :  Who 
fay,  that  aLikenefs  between  two  Things  of  the  fame  Nature  ;  fuch 
as  the  offering  up  two  Men  to  Death,  though  in  different  Ways, 
and  tranfaded  in  two  very  diflant  Periods,  is  not  fufficient  alone  to 

*   Confid.  p.  156.  +  Ibid.  p.  J56,  157, 

fliew. 


^46  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

(hew  that  they  had  any  Relation  to  one  another  *.  With  the  fame 
Realon  they  will  {^ly,  you  might  pretend  that  Jephthas  Daughter, 
or  the  King  of  MoaFs  Son,  whom  the  Father  facrificed  on  the 
Wall  f ,  were  the  Types  oiCbrJJVs  Sacrifice.  Give  us,  fay  they,  a 
Bible-Proof  that  God  declared  or  revealed  his  Intention  ofprefigur- 
incT  the  Death  of  Jefus ;  or  fome  better  Authority  at  leaft  than  a 
modern  Typifier,  who  deals  only  in  Similitudes  and  Correfpondences. 
Now  whether  it  be  our  Examiner,  or  I,  who  have  given  them  this 
Satisfadion,  or  whether  they  have  any  Reafon  to  require  it  of  us,  is 
left  to  the  impartial  Reader  to  confider. 

XIX. 

We  now  come  to  the  Utility  of  my  Interpretation  of  the 
Command,  having  got  through  all  his  Objedions  to  its  Truth. 
And  here,  the  fame  Civility  and  Candour  which  fo  polifhcd  and 
enlivened  the  foregoing  Part,  fliine  out  again,  in  the  very  firft  Words 
of  this.  "And  now.  Sir  (fays  he)  give  me  Leave  to  afk,  what 
*'  Service  have  you  done  to  Religion  by  your  Interpretation  ?  W> 
*'  w^re  prepared  for  it,  p.  84.  by  an  Intimation  that  fomething  was 
•'  to  arife  from  it  to  the  Confujion  of  Infidelity:  As  how  ?  why  firfl, 
*'  as  by  your  Manner  of  explaining  this  Tranfadion  oi  Abraham,  you 
*«  (hould  illuflrate  God's  Truth  by  the  noblejl  Infiance  that  ever  was 
"  given  of  the  Harmony  befwecn  the  Old  and  New  Tejtament."  And 
2<lly,  "as  by  its  Aid  you  fl.wuld  be  enabled  to  give  the  true  Solution  of 
**  thofe  inexplicable  Difficulties  which  have  beenfo  long  the  Stumbling'- 
"  Block  of  Infidelity  X" 

And  now  he  addreffes  hlmfelf  to  (hew,  that  my  Interpretation 
has  neither  of  thefe  Advantages.  "  Firft,  as  to  the  Harmony  fhe 
fays)  "  he  has  juft  above  (hewn  that  the  Tranfaftion  will  be  equally 
"  prophetic  of  Chrijfs  Sacrifice,  whether  my  Interpretation  be  ad- 

*  See  what  the  Letter-Writer  abovementioned  fays,  p.  53,  54.  much  to  the  fame 
Parpofe. 

f  2  Kings  iii.  27.  J  Confid.  p.  157. 

"  mitted 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  447 

"  mittcd  or  not  *."     He    hath   fliewn  it  indeed  !  as  the  IrlJJ:man 

fliewed  his .     And  it  is  frcfli  in  the  Reader's  Memory.     Come 

we,  then,  to  the  fecond.  "  As  to  the  fecond  (fays  he)  the  D'lfficul- 
"  tks  which  have  been  fo  long  the  Stumbhng- block  of  Infidelity, 
"  which  upon  the  Foot  of  the  common  Interpretation  you  call  in- 
'■'■  fupe,  able  ;  I  greatly  marvel  that  you  (hould  call  them  fo,  when 
"  you  acknowledge,  in  the  very  fame  Page,  that  the  Arguments 
*'  hitherto  brought  to  Jupport  the  H'Jlory  of  this  Command  are  of  great 
^^  Weight  and  Validity^."  He  marvels  !  Why  let  him  marvel. 
I  fuppofe  he  never  heard  that  there  are  infuperable  Difficulties  even  to 
fome  demonftrable  Propofitions.  But  he,  of  all  Men,  fhould  have 
accepted  my  Concefilon  upon  fair  Terms,  fince  it  was  made  to 
humour  Divines  like  himfelf ;  wlio  think  it  enough  for  Religion  if 
the  Objedions  to  it  be,  as  he  warily  exprefles  it,  guarded 
AGAINST  i  :  Which,  God  knows  !  they  often  are,  by  Arguments 
of  no  great  Weight  or  Validity. 

XX. 

However  fjays  he)  "  whether  you  had  owned  this  or  nor,  I 
*'  SHOULD  HAVE  TAKEN  UPON  MYSELF  TiiE  Proof  that  thefe  in- 
*'  fuperable  Difficulties  may  be  very  cffedually  and  fubftantially  re- 
"  moved,  without  borrowing  any  Aid  from  your  Inter])retation. 
*'  The  Subfl:ance  of  the  Objeftion  to  the  hiftoric  Truth  of  this  Re- 
*' lation,  as  colleded  by  yourfelf,  p.  614  §,  is  this.  That  God  could 
*'  never  give  fuch  a  Command  to  Abraham,  bccaufe  it  ivoidd  throw 
*'  him  into  inextricable  Doubts  concerning  the  Author  of  it  ;  as  ichethcr 
*'  //  proceeded  from  a  good  or  evil  Being — \becaufe'\  it  would  mi/lead 
"  him  in  his  Notions  of  the  Divine  Attributes,  and  of  the  fundamental 
**  Principles  of  Morality.  For  though  the  revoking  the  Command prc- 
*'  vented  the  Homicide  ;  yet  the  Atiion  being  commanded,  and,  at  the 
*'  Revocation,  not  condemned ;  Abraham  and  his  Family  mufi  needs 

*  Confid.  p.  157.  f  Ibid-    p. '57,  158.  +  Ibid.-  p.  137. 

§  Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  357. 

«*  have 


44S  R  r:  MARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

■♦>  have  t bought  human  Sacrijjces  grateful  to  the  Jlmighty.  For  afim- 
•'  tie  revcking  tvas  no  Conckmnation  ;  but  would  be  more  naturally 
"  efteemed  a  peculiar  Indulgence  for  ready  Obedience.  Thus  the  Pagan 
"  Fable  of  D'lmz  ijubjiituting  a  Hind  in  the  Place  of  Iphigenia,  did 
*»  not  make  Idolaters  believe  that  Jhe  therefore  abhorred  human  Sacri' 
■"  fices^  they  having  before  been  perfuaded  of  the  contrary  *."  The 
Objection,  the  Reader  fees,  confifts  of  two  Parts :  The  one,  that 
JIbraham  muft  doubt  of  the  Author  of  the  Command:  T\i&  other, 
that  he  would  be  mifled  concerning  his  Attributes ;  or  in  the  Grate- 
fuhiefs  of  human  Sacrifices  to  liim. 

To  tht  frji,  our  Examiner  anfwers  t,  partly  from  what  I  myfelf 
•had  obferved  might  be  urged  by  Believers,  as  of  great  Weight  and 
Validity,  and  partly  from  what  he  had  picked  up  elfewhere.  But 
here  I  (hall  avoid  imitating  his  Example,  In  endeavouring  to  fliew 
the  Invalidity  of  Arguments  profefledly  brought  In  Support  of  Re- 
ligion :  An  Employment  by  no  Means  becoming  aChriftian  Divine. 
If  they  have  any  weak  Parts,  I  fliall  leave  them  to  Unbelievers  to 
find  out.  1  have  the  more  Reafon  too  to  trufl:  them  to  their  own 
Weight,  both  as  they  are  none  of  his,  with  whom  only  I  have 
here  to  do,  and  as  I  have  acknowledged  their  Validity.  All  I  fhall 
obferve  is,  that,  as  I  had  made  that  Acknowledgment,  I  fee  not 
to  what  End  they  are  urged  againfl  me;  uniefs  it  were  to  entertain 
us  with  his  Common-Place  :  Which  I  fliould  have  received  in  Si- 
lence, had  he  not  affedled  to  introduce  it  with  fo  much  Pomp 

*'  Whether  you  had  owned  this  or  not  (fays  he)  I  fhould  have  taken 
"  upon  myfelf  the  Proof"  Whereas,  all  that  he  has  taken  is  the 
Property  of  others  :  Made  his  own^  indeed,  by  a  weak  and  an  im- 
perfedl  Rcprcfentation. 

But  now  he  comes  to  ihefecond  Part  of  the  Objedion.  *'  As  to 
"  the  latter  Part  of  the  Obje£tion  (fays  he)  that  from  this  Com- 
"  mand,  Abraham  and  his  Family  mufl  needs  have  thought  hu- 
■"  man  Sacrifices  acceptable  to  God  ;  the  revoking  the  Command  at 

*  Coqfid.  p.  J  58,  f  Ibid.  p.  159,   160. 

"  lafl. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  449 

"  lafV,  was  a  lufficlent  Guard  againfl:  any  fuch  Confliinflion.  To 
"  this  you  make  the  Unbeliever  anfvvcr :  No;  bccaule  tlie  Action 
'*  having  been  commanded  ought  to  have  been  condemned ;  and  a 
"  fimple  Revocation  was  no  CondevmaUon.  But  why  was  not  the 
*' Revocation  of  tiie  Command,  in  this  Cafe,  a  Condemnation  of 
"  the  Aftion  ?  If  I  fliould  tempt  you  to  go  .and  kill  your  next 
*'  Neighbour,  and  afterwards  come  and  defirc  you  not  to  do  it ; 
•'  would  not  this  After- declaration  be  as  good  an.  Evidence  of  my 
*'  Diflike  to  the  AvSion,  as  the  firfl:  was  of  my  Approbation  of  it  ? 
"  Yes,  and  a  much  better,  as  it  may  be  prefumed  to  have  been  the 
•'  Refult  of  maturer  Deliberation.  Now  though  Deliberation  and 
"  After-thought  are  not  incident  to  God ;  yet  as  Cod  in  this  Cafe 
"  condefcended  (as  you  fay,  and  very  truly)  to  aft  after  the  Man- 
"  ;/^r  of  Men  ;  the  fame  ConJlruSlion  fliould  be  put  upon  his  Anions, 
"as  are  ufually  put  upon  the  Attions  oi  Men  in  like  Cafes*." 
Now,  though,  as  was  fald  above,  I  would  pay  all  decent  Regard 
and  Reference  that  becomes  a  Friend  of  Revelation,  to  the  common 
Arguments  oi  others  m  its  Defence,  yet  I  muft  not  betray  my  own. 
I  confcfied  they  had  great  ll'eight  and  Validity ;  yet,  at  the  fame 
Time,  I  afierted,  they  were  attended  with  infuperabk  Difficulties. 
And  while  I  fo  think,  I  mufl:  beg  Leave  to  inforce  my  Reafons  for 
this  Opinion.  And,  I  hope,  v('ithout  Offence  ;  as  the  Arguments, 
I  am  now  about  to  examine,  are  purely  this  Writer's  own.  And 
the  Reader  has,  by  this  Time,  feen  too  much  of  him  to  be  appre- 
henfive,  that  the  leflening  his  Authority  will  be  attended  with  any 
great  DiiTervlce  to  Religion. 

I  had  obferved,  that  the  Reafonings  of  Unbelievers  on  this  Cafe, 
as  it  is  commonly  explained,  w^ere  not  devoid  of  all  Plaufibility, 
when  they  proceeded  thus — That  as  Abraham  lived  amongfl:  Hea- 
thens, whofe  higheft  A6t  of  Divine  Worfliip  was  Human  Sacrifice  ; 
if  God  had  commanded  that  xA£l,  and,  on  the  point  of  Perfor- 
mance, only  remitted  ic  as  a  Favour  (and   ^o  it  is  rcprefcntcd) ; 

"    Confid.  p.  160,  161. 

Vol.  VI.  M  m  m  witliout 


45©  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

without  dcclnring  the  Iniquity  of  the  Prndice,  when  nddreflcd  to 
Idols;  or  his  Abhorrence  of  it,  when  direfted  to  himfelf;  the  Fa- 
mily miifl:  have  been  mifled  in  their  Ideas  concerning  the  moral 
Rci5\itudc  of  that  Species  of , Religious  Worfhip  :  Therefore,  God, 
in  thcfc  Clrcuniftanccs,  had  he  commanded  the  Action  as  a  Trial 
cnl)\  would  have  explicitly  condemned  that  Mode  as  immoral.  But 
He  is  not  reprefenttd  as  condemning,  but  as  remitting  it  m  Favour: 
Confequently,  fay  the  Unbelievers,  God  did  not  command  the 
Aflion  at  all. — Now  what  fays  our  Examiner,  in  anfwer  to  all  this  ? 
He  fays, — "  But  why  ?  Was  not  the  Revocation  of  the  Command 
**  a  Condemnation  of  the  Adlion  ?  Ifl  fhould  tempt  you  to  go  and 
*«  kill  your  next  Neighbour,  and  afterwards  come  and  desire  you 
*«  not  to  do  it,  would  not  this  After-declaration  be  as  good  an  Evi- 
"  dence  of  my  Diflike  to  the  Adion,  as  the  firft  was  of  my  Appro- 
«'  bation  of  it  ?"  To  tliis  I  reply  ;  That  the  Cafes  are,  by  no 
means,  parallel ;  cither  in  themfelves,  or  in  their  Circumftances  : 
I  ft,  Not  m  themfelves.  The  Murder  of  our  next  Neighbour  was, 
amongft  all  the  Gentiles  of  that  time,  efteemed  a- high  Immorality  ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  human  Sacrifices  a  very  holy  and  acceptable 
Part  of  Divine  Worfhip.  2dly,  Not  in  their  Circwpjlances,  The 
Dsfie  to  forbear  the  Murder  tempted  to  is  (in  the  Cafe  he  puts) 
reprefented  as  Repentance:  Whereas  the  Stop  put  to  the  Sacrifice  of 
JJjac  is  (in  the  Cafe  Mofes  puts)  reprefented  as  Favour. 

But  what  follows  I  could  wifli  (for  the  Honour  of  modern  The- 
ology) that  the  Method  I  have  obferved  would  have  permitted  me 
to  pafs  over  in  Silence.  *'  Now,  though  Deliberation  and  After- 
"  thought  ffiyshe)  are  not  incident  to  God,  yet,  as  God,  in  this 
"  Cafe,  condefcended  (as  you  fay,  and  very  truly)  toad  after  the 
"  Manner  of  Men ;  the  fame  Conftrudion  fhould  be  put  upon 
"  his  Aaions,  as  are  ufually  put  upon  the  Adtions  of  Men  in  like 
"  Cafes  «  :"  ;.  e.  though  Deliberation  and  Jfter-thought  are  not  inci- 
dent to  God  ;  yet  you  are  to  underftand   his  Aftions,  as  if  they 

*  Conlid.  p.  15J,    156. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  451 

were  incident.  A  horrid  Interpretation  !  And  yet  his  Reprcfcnta- 
tion  of  the  Command  and  his  decent  Illuftration  of  it,  by  a  Mur- 
derer in  Intention,  will  not  fufFcr  us  to  interpret  it  in  any  other 
Manner.  For  God,  as  if  in  Hafle,  and  before  due  Deliberation,  is 
reprefented  as  commanding  an  immoral  Action  ;  yet  again,  as  it 
were  by  an  After-thought,  ordering  it  to  be  foreborn,  by  rcafon  of 
its  Immorality.  And  in  what  is  all  this  impious  Jargon  founded  ? 
If  you  will  believe  our  Examiner ;  on  the  Principle  I  laid  down, 
That  God  condefcends  to  act  after  the  Manner  of  Men.  I  have  all 
along  had  Occafion  to  complain  of  his  mifreprefenting  my  Princi- 
ples. But  they  were  Principles  he  difiked.  And  this  the  modern 
Aianagement  of  Controverfy  has  fandtified.  But  here,  tliough  the 
Principle  be  approved,  he  yet  cannot  forbear  mifreprefenting  it.  So 
bad  a  Thing  is  an  evil  Habit.  Let  me  tell  him  therefore,  that  by 
the  Principle  oi  God's  condefcending  to  aSi  after  the  Manner  of  Men, 
is  not  meant,  that  he  ever  ads  in  Compliance  to  thofe  Vices  and 
Superflitions,  which  arife  from  the  Depravity  of  human  Will:  But 
in  Conformity  only  to  Men's  indifferent  Manners  and  Cuftoms; 
and  to  thofe  Ufi\ges  which  refult  only  from  the  finite  Imperfedions 
of  their  Nature.  Thus  though,  as  in  the  Cafe  before  us,  God  was 
pleafed,  in  Conformity  to  their  Mode  of  Information,  to  ufe  their 
Cuftom  of  revoking  a  Command ;  yet  he  never  condefcended  to 
imitate  (as  our  Examiner  fuppofes)  the  Irrefolution,  the  Repen- 
tance, and  Horrors  of  Confcience  of  a  Murderer  in  Intention. 
Which  (gracious  Heaven  !)  is  the  Parallel  this  Divine  brings  to 
illuftrate  the  Command  to  Abraham.  But  he  had  read  that  God  is 
fometimes  faid  to  repent ;  and  he  thought,  I  fuppofe,  it  anfwered 
to  that  Repentance  which  the  Stings  of  Confcience  fometimes  pro- 
duce in  bad  Men.  Whereas  it  is  fiiid,  in  Conformity  to  a  good 
Magiftrate's  or  Parent's  Correftion  of  Vice,  firfl:  to  threaten  Punifli- 
i-nent;  and  then,  on  the  Offender's  Amendment,  to  remit  it. 

M  m  m  2  XXI.  Bat 


452  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 


XXI. 


But  he  goes  on  without  any  Signs  of  Remorfe.  «'Nor  will  the 
««  Pagan  Fable  of  JD/WitfV  fubftituting  a  Hind  in  the  Place  oi  Iphige- 
•'  tiia  at  all  help  your  Unbeliever.  This  did  not,  fay  they,  or 
«'  YOU  FOR  THEM,  make  Idolaters  believe  that  Ihe  therefore  ab- 
«'  horred  human  Sacrifices.  But  do  not  they  themfelves,  or  have 
*'  not  you  affigned  a  very  proper  and  fufficient  Reafon  why  it  did, 
»♦  viz.  that  they  had  been  before  per  funded  of  the  co'nirary  t  Where 
"  human  Sacrifices  make  a  Part  of  the  fettled  ftanding  Religion  ; 
«  the  Refufal  to  accept  a  human  Sacrifice  in  one  Inftance  may, 
♦'  indeed,  be  rather  looked  upon  as  a  particular  Indulgence,  than  as 
«'  a  Declaration  againft  the  Thing  in  grofs.  But  where  the  Thing 
«'  was  commanded  but  in  one  fingle  Inftance,  and  the  Command 
«'  revoked  in  that  very  Inftance  (which  is  our  prefent  Cafe), 
"  fuch  Revocation  in  all  reafonable  Conftrudtion  is  as  efFedlual  a 
"'  Condemnation  of  the  Thing,  as  if  God  had  told  Abraham^  in  fo 
"  many  Words,  that  he  delighted  not  in  human  Sacrifices  *."  To 
come  to  our  Examiner's  half-buried  Senfe,  we  are  often  obliged  to 
remove,  or  at  lead  to  fift  well,  the  Rubbifh  of  his  W^ords.  He  fays, 
the  Revocation  was  an  effectual  Condemnation.  This  may  either  fig- 
nify,  that  Men  now  free  from  the  Prejudices  of  Pagan  Superftition 
may  fee  that  human  Sacrifices  were  condemned  by  the  Revocation 
of  the  Command  :  Or,  that  Abrahanis  Family  could  fee  this.  In 
the  fiift  Senfe,  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  his  Propofition  ;  and  iu 
the  fecond,  1  fliall  take  the  liberty  to  deny  it  was  an  effectual  Con^ 
demnation.     With  liow  good  Reafon  let  the  Reader  judge. 

Abraham^  for  the  great  Ends  of  God's  Providence,  was  called  out 
of  an  idolatrous  City,  infeded,  as  all  fuch  Cities  then  were,  with 
this  horrid  Superflition.  He  was  himfelf  an  Idolater,  as  appears 
from  the  Words  of  Jojhua — Tour  Fathers  dwelt  on  the  other  fide  of 


the 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTION?.  457 

the  Flood  in  old  Time,  even  Terah  the  Father  cf  Abraham,  and  the 
Father  o/Nachor  :  and  they  fer-ved  oih:r  Gods.  And  I  took  your 
Father  Abraham  *,  &c.  God,  in  tlie  Act  of  calling  him,  inOru^tccl 
him  in  the  Unity  of  his  Nature,  and  the  Error  of  Polytheifm  :  as 
the  great  Principle,  for  the  fake  of  which  (and  to  preferve  it  in  one 
Family  amidft  an  uulverfal  Overflow  of  Idolatry)  he  was  calLd  out. 
That  he  mufl  be  prejudiced  in  fiivour  of  his  Country  Siipcrftitions, 
is  not  to  be  doubted  ;  becaufe  it  is  of  human  Nature  itfelf  to  be 
lb  :  And  yet  we  find  no  particular  Inftruftion  given  him,  concern- 
ing the  Superftition  in  queflion.  Further,  the  noble  Author  of  the 
Charalicri/lics  obferves,  that  "  it  appears  that  he  was  under  no  ex- 
"  treme  Surprife  on  this  trying  Revelation  ;  nor  did  he  think  of  ex- 
"  poftulating  in  the  leaft  on  this  occafion  ;  when  at  another  time 
'^  he  could  be  {0  importunate  for  the  Pardon  of  an  inhofpitablc, 
"  murderous,  impious,  and  incefluous  City  -}~."  InfHiuating  here- 
by, that  this  kind  of  Sacrifice  was  a  thing  he  had  been  accuftomed 
to  :  Now  the  noble  Author  obferves  this,  upon  the  Examiners,  that 
is,  the  c;7/;wwM  Interpretation.  x'\nd  I  believe,  on  that  footing,  he, 
or  a  better  Writer,  would  fmd  it  difficult  to  enervate  the  Obferva- 
tion.  Whereas  I  have  fliewn  (in  the  Place  from  whence  I  have 
here  quoted  it)  that  it  falls  together  with  that  Interpretation. 

Well;  Abraham  is  now  in  the  Land  of  Canaan;  and  again  fur- 
rounded  with  the  fanie  idolatrous  and  inhumane  Sacrificcrs.  Hcr(? 
he  receives  the  Command  :  And,  on  the  point  of  Performance,  has 
it  countermanded  as  a  Favour.  A  Circumflance,  in  the  Revocar 
tion,  which  I  muft  beg  the  Examiner's  leave  to  Infill:  upon  ;  elpor 
cially  when  I  find  him  fo  flippery  as,  at  every  turn,  to  forget  it  •,. 
that  is,  to  pafs  It  over  in  filence,  without  either  owning  or  denying, 
As  Indeed,  the  little  Support  his  general  Argument  has,  in  any 
place.  Is  only  by  keeping  Truth  out  of  fight.  But  further,  the 
Favour    was  unaccompanied   with  any  Iiiftrudion    concerning  \\vx 

*  Jofli.  xxiv.  2,  3. 

f  Divine  Legat.  Vol.  II.  p.  624.  Note"     [Vol.  III.   p.  403.  567.     F.il.  410.! 

r.:o!-ai. 


454  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

morni  Nature  of  this  kind  of  Sacrifice;  a  Pradice  never  pofitively 
forbidden  but  by  the  Law  of  Mofes.  Now,  in  this  cafe,  I  would 
afk  any  candid  Reader,  the  leaft  acquainted  with  human  Nature, 
whether  Abraham  and  his  Family,  prejudiced  as  they  were  in  favour 
-cf  human  Sacrifices ;  (the  one,  by  his  Education  in  his  Country 
Religion  ;  the  other,  by  their  Communication  with  their  Pagan 
Neighbours,  and,  as  appears  by  Scripture,  but  too  apt  to  fall  into 
Idolatry)  would  not  be  naturally  tempted  to  think  as  favourably  of 
human  i^acrifices  as  thofe  Pagans  were,  who  underftood  that  Dh'ui 
required  Iphigenia  ;  though  (he  acccpred  a  Hind  in  her  ftead.  Ami 
with  fuch  Readers,  I,  finally,  leave  it. 


XXII. 

Our  Examiner  having  now  (hewn,  firfl-.  That  my  Interpretation 
IS  not  founded  in  Truth.  Secondly,  That  it  is  produdlive  of  no 
Utility  :  He  comes,  in  good  time,  to  the  third  and  lafl:  Part  of  his 
Herculean  Labour,  to  fliew,  that  it  makes  matters  ivorfe  than  I  found 
ihem :  Which,  in  other  Words,  we  fliall  find,  will  amount  to  this 
— That  the  common  Interpretation  agrees  with  his  Syflcm  ;  but  that 
mine  does  not:  v^-hich  Syjletn,  by  the  known  Courtefy  of  Controverly, 
you  are  to  permit  him  to  call  the  Word  of  God. 

"  This,  Sir  (fays  he)  is  the  Subftance  of  what  has  been  or  may 
"  be  oifered,  in  Anfwer  to  the  Objeftions  propounded  upon  the 
*'  common  foot  of  Interpretation.  Let  us  now  fee  vi\\?iX.  your  In- 
"  terpretation  affords  that  is  better.  You  fay  then  ;  That  the  Com- 
*'  mand  could  occafion  no  M flakes  concerning  the  divine  Attributes^  he- 
*'  caufe  it  was  only  the  Connjeyance  of  an  Information  by  ABlon  irfead 
'*  of  Words  ;  in  Conformity  to  the  common  Mode  of  converjirig  in  early 
*'  Times.  This  A&ion  therefore  being  mere  Scenery,  and,  like  Words, 
^'  only  of  arbitrary  Signification  j  //  had  no  moral  Import ;  but  the 
**  Formality  of  that  Adlion,  which  has  no  moral  Import,  is  Jecn  no 
*'  way  to  affect  the  moral  Cbaradier  of  the  Author.— AW  this.   Sir,  is 

"admitted." 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS.  455 

"  admitted."  Very  well,  proceed.  "  In  your  way  of  reckonings 
"  the  Command  had  no  moral  Import ;  for  nothing  was  intended 
"  to  be  done  to  Abrahan^s  Hurt  or  Prejudice  ;  who,  as  you  tell  us, 

"  very  well  tinderjlood — how  the  fc€7iicalReprcfeiUatlon  ivas  to  end  \ 

"  and  mitjl  needs  conclude — either  that  God  would Jl.p  his  Hand  ivhen 
'■  be  came  to  give  the  facrifcing  Stroke-,  or  that — his  Son,  facrijiced 
"  in  the  Perfon  o/'Chrift,  nvas  immediately  to  be  rejlored  to  Life. 
''  This  Solution,  no  doubt,  clears  up  every  thing  as  to  Abraham  ; 
'*  and  confequently  removes  Cfie  Part  of  the  Objeftion,  which  fays  ; 
"  that  God  could  not  give  fuch  a  Command,  becaufe  it  inferred  a 
*'  Violation  of  the  natural  Law  *." 

Here  certainly  I  can  complain  of  nothing  but  my  ill  Fortune. 
This  is  the  firft  time  the  Examiner  has  pleafed  to  own  that  I  have- 
removed  an  Objedion.  And  now,  iliflead  of  rejoicing  in  the  Ho- 
nour he  does  me,  I  have  a  Scruple  of  Confcience  about  accepting  it. 
And  my  Cafe  is  this.  He  fays  I  have  removed  \t  upon  tins  Princi- 
ple of  mine,  that  the  Command  had  no  moral  Import.  But  alas  !  ii> 
croffing  the  Proverb,  and  looking,  as  it  were,  into  his  Mouth,  (for 
tliere  his  Words  have  their  birth,  and  not  from  his  Heart)  I  find 
he  foully  miftakes  the  Meaning  of  the  Principle  ;  and,  what  is 
worfe,  feems  to  give  his  own  wrong  Meaning  to  me.  "  In  vouTv 
"  way  of  reckoning,  the  Command  had  no  moral  Import ;  for  no- 
"  thing  was  intended  to  be  done  to  Abrahavis  Hurt  or  Prejudice.'*" 
But  as  near  as  he  thinks  himfelf  to  me,  he  is  a  ]\lile  from  the  Rea- 
fon.  The  Reafon  why  I  fay  it  had  no  moral  Import,  was,  not 
becaufe  nothing  was  done  to  Abraham's  Hurt  or  Prejudice  ;  Alas  \. 
No  :  but  becaufe  the  Ad  commanded  was,  both  in  the  Intention 
of  God,  and  in  the  Kiiowledge  of  Abraham,  a  vatvcfcenical  Reprefn- 
tation,  and  not  a  Religious  Sacrifice  :  For  that  z/cenical  Reprefcnta- 
tioa  has  nothing  of  that  moral  Import  which  belongs  to  the  thing 
reprefented.  Let  the  Gift,  then,  go  current  or  not,  juft  as  the- 
Reader  pleafes.     I  find  I  have  little  Reafon  to  be  anxious  about  its. 

*  Confid.  p.  161,  16-. 

Value, 


456  REMARKS   ON    SEVERAL 

Value,  nnd  lefs  to  be  proud  of  the  Honour :  For  he  Immediately 
fubjoius,  "  But  as  this  Solution  removes  one  Difficulty,  it  creates 
"another."  What,  another  in  favour  of  Infidelity  !  No,  But  con- 
ctnnn^ Abraham' s  Merit  in  Obedience.  Yet  his  Purpofe  is  here  to  fliew, 
that  my  Interpretation  can  do  nothing  againft  an  infidel  Objetlion  ; 
which,  were  it  not  for  his  Anfwers,  that,  as  he  well  exprefles  ir, 
ftand  guard  over  them,  might  run  nobody  knows  whither.  So 
that  flili,  by  his  own  Confeflion,  my  Interpretation  has  removed 
one  of  the  llrongeft  Infidel  Objections.  However,  as  I  would  not 
before  accept  this  Honour  at  the  Expence  of  Truth  ;  fo  neither 
will  I  now  at  the  Expence  of  ^bru tarn's  Character.  Let  us  en- 
tjuire,  therefore,  into  this  new-created  Difficulty.  "  It  is  (fays  he) 
'<  that  the  Command  will  not  ftand  with  the  Notion  of  a  Trial,  in 
"  cue  Point,  in  which  the  Fliflory  itfelf  intimates  it  was  intended  as 
"  fuch.  You  tell  usi  that  Abraham^  in  exprejing  his  extreme  Rea- 
"  di/irfs  to  obij,  declared  a  full  Confidence  in  the  Promifes  of  God  \ 
*■•  which  is  very  true.  But  you  fay  nothing  of  his  Virtue,  i.  e.  of 
"  his  Patience  and  Self-denial;  of  which  yet  this  Command  was  in- 
"  tended  as  a  Trial.  The  very  Words  of  the  Comnnnd  fliew 
'•'  this.  Take  }20w  thy  Son,  thine  only  Son  Ifaac,  whom  thou 
"  LOVEST.  Here  are  two  things  pointed  at,  as  flanding  in  the 
"  Way  to  hinder  Abraham  from  obeying  this  Command,  i .  The 
"  Afllirances  which  God  had  given  him,  that  Ifaac  (hould  be  the 
"  Heir  of  the  Promifes  ;  for  Ifaac  was  Abraham's  only  Son,  not 
"  by  Birth  but  by  Prornife.  2.  His  natural  paternal  Affedlion.  The 
'*  firfl  difficulty  his  Faith  was  to  remove ;  th.Qfecond  was  to  be  con- 
"  quered  by  his  Rcfolulion  and  Fortitude.  But  where,  I  afk,  was 
"  Abraham's  Refolution ;  if  he  knew,  either  that  God  would  not 
"  fuffcr  the  Command  to  be  put  in  Execution  ;  or  if  he  did,  that 
"  he  (hould  infantly  be  reflored  to  him  ?  Refolution  is  fliewed  by 
"  bearing  hard  Things;  but  on  neither  of  thefe  Suppofitlons 
*•  had  Abraham  any  Thing  in  Expedlation,  by  wliich  he  could  be 
*'  a  Sufferer*."     And  now  we  fee  how  ivilliagly  he  was  mifled, 

*  Confid.  p.  163. 

when 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  457 

when  he  miftook  my  Reafon,  why  the  A^lion  had  no  moral  Im- 
port ;  and  faying,  it  was  becaufe  nothing  was  intended  to  be  done 
to  Abraham's  Hurt  or  Prejudice.  For  it  was  preparatory  to  what 
he  here  undertakes  to  fliew,  that,  according  to  my  Interpretation, 
Abraham  had  no  room  to  exercife  his  paternal  Affedlion  ;  that  being 
what  he  drives  at  by  all  his  round-about  Words.  But  to  proceed. 
He  fays,  "  You  tell  us  that  Abraham,  in  exprefling  his  extreme 
*'  Readinefs  to  obey,  declared  a  full  Confidence  in  the  Promifes  of 
•'  God.  But  you  fay  nothing  of  his  Virtue  ;  ;.  e.  of  his  Patience 
*'  and  Self-denial,  of  which  this  Command  was  intended 
*'  AS  A  Trial."  He  fays  very  true  I  fald  nothing  of  it,  and  the 
Reafon  was  (not  that  I  thought  he  had  them  not,  but)  becaufe  Holy- 
Scripture /(^jyj  nothing  of  them  *.  But  he  tells  me,  though  Scrip- 
ture y2»/V  nothings  it  pointed  to  them.  And  fo  did  I,  if  he  goes  to 
tliat.  Indeed,  I  neithery^2/V/ nor  pointed  at  any  thing  fo  abfurd,  as 
that  the  Command  was  intended  as  a  Trial  of  his  Patience  and  Self- 
denial,  becaufe  Scripture  reprefents  it  as  a  Trial  of  his  Faith  only. 
By  Faith  Abraham  when  he  was  tried  offered  up  Ifaac,  fays 
the  Author  of  the  Epijile  to  the  Hebrews.  But  I  won't  promife  what 
I  fhall  not  do  for  the  future.  I  think  it  deferves  to  he  pointed  at. 
But  he  fays  I  fpeak  of  Abraham's  Faith,  and  fay  nothing  of  his 
Virtue.  It  is  commonly  faid,  indeed,  that  Patience  is  a  Virtue  ; 
but  it  is  as  true  that  Faith  is  one  alfo.  Though  he  may  be  in  the 
number  of  thofe  fubtlle  Schoolmen  the  Poet  fpeaks  of,  for  aught  I 
know, 

««  Who  Faith  and  Virtue,  Senfe  and  Reafon  fplit, 

With  all  the  ra(h  Dexterity  of  Wit." 

Yet,  for  all  this,  I  own,  that  the  great  Merit  of  Abraham'' s  Faith 
implied  in  it  Patience  and  Self-denial.  Let  us  hear  then  how  I  have 
leflened  thefe  Virtues.  Why  then  "  hear  (fays  our  Examiner)  what 
*'  the  Author  of  the  Epiflle   to  the  Hebrews  fays ;  who  beft  un- 

*    See  what  the  Letter- Writer  has  vcy  pertinently  replied  to  this  Purpofe,   p.  72. 

Vol.  VI.  N  n  n  «♦  derftood 


458  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

"  derAood  this  Matter.  By  Faiib,  Abraham  when  he  was  tried, 
"  ofcred  up  Il'aac  ;  and  he  that  had  received  the  Promifes,  offered  up 
*»  his  only  begotten  Son  ;  of  whom  it  was  /aid,  that  in  Ihwcfiall  thy 
««  Seed  be  called;  accounting,  that  God  was  able  to  raife  him  up  even 
'■^ from  the  Dead.  Heb,  xi.  17,  iH,  19.  It  is  in  the  Nature  of 
*'  the  Tiling,  neceflhry  to  be  fuppofed  ;  that  Abraham  was  firmly 
"  perfuaded,  either,  that  God  would  revoke  the  Command  ;  or, 
«'  that  he  would  raife  up  his  Son  from  the  Dead  ;  for  otherwife 
♦'  the  Promlfe  could  never  ftand.  The  Apoftle  tells  yow  precifely, 
"  which  of  thefe  he  believed  ;  viz.  that  it  was,  that  God  would 
♦'  raife  Ifaac  from  the  dead.  And  this  agrees  with  the  Charafler 
*'  that  the  Scripture  gives  of  Abrahatn\  Faith ;  his  believing 
*'  AGAINST  Hope,  /.  e.  againft  all  the  Appearances  or  Probabilities 
<'  of  human  Things.  When  Ijaac  was  born,  he  received  \\wnfrom 
"  the  dead;  i.  e,  from  a  dead  Womb.  Suppofing  him  {lain,  he  be- 
♦'  lieved  that  he  (hould  again  receive  him  from  the  dead;  and  this 
"  again  was  believing  against  Hope  ;  for  one  was  as  much  againil: 
"the  natural  Courfe  of  Things,  as  the  other,  But  pray  obferve 
"  this.  Sir  ;  the  Apoftle  does  not  fay,  that  Abraham  accounted  that 
«' God  would  raife  his  Son  instantly.  He  might  (for  aught 
**  Abraham  knew,  or  had  any  Reafon  to  hope  to  the  contrary)  be 
"  FOR  EVER  loft  TO  HIM  ;  though  he  was  aflured  he  could  not  be 
"  fo  loft  as  that  the  Promife  of  God  fliould  fail  ;  upon  which  Foot, 
♦'  there  will  be  room  left  for  all  that  Difturbance  from  Faffion  and 
*'  natural  Affection,  which  every  Father  feels  upon  the  lofs  of  x 
"  beloved  Child  ;  and  confequently,  Matter  left  for  the  Exercife 
*'  of  his  Virtue.  It  fuits  beft  indeed,  with  your  Hypothefis,  to 
«'  fay,  that  Abraham  believed  that  his  Son  fhould  be  raifed  IN- 
'•  STANTLY.  For  if  this  whole  Tranfadlion  was  a  fcenical  Re- 
"  prefentation,  to  inform  Abraham  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrifl;  and 
*<  if  rhis  (as  you  fay,  p.  612  *)  was  xh^  pritjcipal  Defgn  of  the  Com- 
"  mand;  tht  Information  once  given,  the  Scenery  ought  to  be  at  an 
"  End.     And  this  is  one  Reafon,  among  others,  why  I  cannot 

*  Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  395. 

*'  believe 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  459 

"  believe  your  Account  to  be  the  true  one ;  bccaulc  it  dcflroys 
"  the  Force  and  Virtue  of  the  Command,  confidcrcd  as  a  Trial  of 
*•  Abrahams  Rejolution  and  Self-denial;  which  neverthelcfs,  the 
*'  very  Hiftory  plainly  Intimates  to  us,  it  was  intended  to  be  *." 

But  now  when  I  thought  he  was  going  to  prove  that  Abrahavi 
had  thefe  Virtues  oi  Patience  and  Self- Denial,  he  is  got  upon  quite 
another  Scent ;  and  has  ftarted  two  otlier  Virtues,  liis  Rejolution  and 
his  Fortitude. — "  The  firil:  Difficulty  his  Faith  was  to  remove ;  the 
"  fecond  was  to  be  conquered  by  his  Resolution  and  Forti- 
*«  TUDE."  But  what  mull:  be  my  Difficulty  all  this  while,  vvlio  liave 
to  do  with  fuch  a  Writer  !  Shall  I  examine  wliat  he  fays  to  Abra- 
ham''s  Patience  and  Self-denial  ?  Come  on  then.  But  now  they 
are  of  a  fudden  turned  to  Refohition  and  Fortitude?  Shall  I  feize 
upon  his  Rejolution  and  Fortitude?  In  vain.  Before  he  gets  to 
the  End  of  his  Argument,  they  are  changed  into  Rejolution  and 
Self-denial.  "  The  Command  (he  fays)  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  Trial 
*'  of  Abraham''s  Resolution  and  Self-denial."  And  fo  the 
two  Pair  of  Virtues,  Patience  and  Self-denial^  and  Rejolution  and 
Fortitude,  have  fairly  compromlfed  the  matter.  And  at  laft  it  is 
agreed,  as  in  a  Whig  and  Tory  Eleftion,  that  Rejolution  and  Self 
denial  fhall  ftand  each  for  the  other's  Reprefentatlve.  Matters 
therefore  being  now  well  fettled,  here  we  fhall  leave  them.  For 
there  is  the  fame  Reverence  due  to  the  Noifenje  of  great  Writers, 
as  the  honefl  Tranflator  of  Salluji  has  taught  us  to  be  due  to  the 
Corruption  of  great  Mlnlfters.  Therefore,  what  he  fays  of  this 
latter  Quality  may  not  be  unfitly  applied  to  the  former,  that 
**  what  founds  like  Nonfenfe  may  not  be  Nonfenfe  :  and  it  Is  not 
"  fo  much  the  Aft,  as  the  Charafters  of  Men  that  conftltutc  it  +•" 
—But  as  I  can  make  nothing  of  his  Words,  I  will  try  to  pick  out 

*  Confiderations,  p.  163 — 5. 

f  "What  founds  like  Corruption  may  not  be  Corruption ;  and  it  is  not  fo  much 
"  the  Aft,  as  the  Charafters  of  Men  that  conftitutc  it."  Gord.  Tianil.  of  Sail.  Pol, 
Difc.  p.  97. 

N  n  n  2  his 


^^o  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Jiis  Meaning  ;  which,  after  all,  fcems  to  accufe  me  of  leaving  Abro" 
bam  neither  Patience  nor  Self-denial :  And  is  founded  in  this,  that, 
according  to  the  common  Interpretation,  as  Abraham  did  not  knoiv 
ivbcn  Ifiiac  would  be  reftored  to  him,  "  there  was  room  left  for  all 
"  that  Difl-urbance  from  Paffion  and  natural  AfFedlon,  which  every 
'•  Father  feels  upon  the  lofs  of  a  beloved  Child  ;  and  confequently 
"  Exercife  for  his  Virtue."  But  on  my  Interpretation  (that  Abra- 
ham knew  his  Son  muft  hefoon  rejiored  to  him)  there  was  no  room, 
it  feems,  for  the  Exercife  of  thefe  Virtues.  And  now,  what  is 
here  worth  anfwering  ?  In  both  Cafes  Abraham's  Faith  had  the 
fame  Trial.  And  this  is  allowed.  And  had  not  his  Faternal 
Ajfe5lion  ?  In  neither  cafe  did  he  know,  but  that  his  Son  was  to 
receive  the  facrihcing  flroke.  And  was  not  the  Faternal  AfFedlion, 
as  much  interefted  in  receiving  him  to  Life  after  three  Days,  as 
after  three  Years?  Suppofing,  (as  is  granted)  that  his  Faith  m 
God's  Promifes  was  exa6lly  the  fame  in  both  Cafes.  How  then 
does  the  Reader  think  our  Examiner  fupports  his  Chicane  ?  How  ? 
but  in  that  way  all  Chicane  is  fupported.  By  reprefenting  doib^ 
Cafes  falfely.  Under  the  common  Interpretation,  he  reprefents  it 
thus, — "  Jfaac  might  (for  aught  Abraham  knew,  or  had  any  Rea- 
"  fon  to  hope  to  the  contrary)  be  for  ever  lost  to  him."  And 
he  tells  me,  "  it  fuits  beft  with  my  Hypothefis,  to  fay  that  Abra- 
**  ham  believed  that  his  Son  fhould  be  raifed  instantly  *."  I 
know  of  nothing  thaty«//j  fo  \Nt\\with  my  Hypothefs  as  Truth  ;  nor 
nothing  fo  ill  with  it,  as  our  Examiner's  Underflanding.  What 
fhall  I  fay  !  Or  rather  what  fhall  J  not  fay.  O  Patience  I  I  feel 
thou  art  a  Virtue,  as  our  Examiner  truly  calls  thee  ? — What  ?  do 
not  thofe  very  Words  of  Scripture,  of  which  the  Examiner  ferves 
himfelf  in  fupport  of  the  common  Interpretation,  accounting  that 
God  was  able  to  raife  him  up  even  from  the  Dead,  imply,  in  all  com- 
mon Conflrudion,  that  Abraham  accounted,  or  believed,  or  had 

*  Coiifid.p.  164,  165. 

Reafon 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  461 

Rciifon  to  hope,  that  Ifaac  was  not  for  ever  lost  to  iiim  ?  But 
it  could  not  be  otherwilc  even  upon  our  Examiner's  own  Interpre- 
tation, who  in  p.  148,  makes  the  receiving  from  the  Dead  an  Alhi- 
llon  to  the  dead  Womb  of  Sarah  ;  For,  according  to  this  Scnfe, 
which,  he  tells  us,  he  prefers  to  any  other,  the  Writer  of  tlie 
Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  could  never  fuppofe  (whatever  our  Examiner 
does)  that  Abraham  might  fear  tliat  Ifaac  would  be  for  ever  loft  to 
him.  For  the  Argument,  according  to  his  Conception  of  the 
Apoflile's  Senfe,  runs  thus, — Abraham  received  Ifaac  out  oi Sarah's 
dead  Womb  ;  i^o  he  hoped  to  receive  him  again  from  the  Aflics  of 
the  Sacrifice.  Thus  does  this  Examiner,  at  every  turn,  forget  his 
own  Principles :  or,  rather,  having  no  Principles  of  his  own,  he 
perceives  not  that  he  takes  the  contradidory  Principles  of  others. 
Again,  does  not  my  Interpretation,  which  fuppofes  that  Abraham 
well  underfl-ood  that  this  commanded  Adtion  was  a  fcenical  Repre- 
fentation  of  Chrifs  Sacrifice  on  the  Crofs,  neceflarily  imply  tliat 
Abraham  knew  no  more  than  that,  as  the  Redeemer  of  Mankind 
could  not  lie  under  the  Power  of  the  Grave ;  fo,  his  Reprefenta- 
tive,  even  though  he  received  the  facrificing  Stroke,  would  not  ? 
Should  he,  therefore,  have  fo  prevaricated  as  to  inlinuatc,  that  I 
ufed  the  Word  injiantly  in  the  Senfe  of  momentaneoufly  j  when  my 
Argument  fliews  1  ufed  it  In  oppolitlon  to  a  diftant  Time  ?  If  the 
Stroke  had  been  given,  we  know,  it  could  not  have  been  till 
the  third  Day  at  leaft.  And  in  this  time  I  hope  there  was  "  room 
"  enough  left  for  all  that  Diilurbance  from  Paflion  and  natural 
*'  AfFeftion  which  every  Father  feels  upon  the  Lofs  of  a  beloved 
*'  Child  *." 

After  all  this,  could  the  candid  ox  fenfible  Reader  conceive  it  pofTible 
that  our  Examiner  fhould  end  his  Argument  In  the  following  btrain  ? 
"  So  that  in  taking  one  Handle  away  from  Unbelievers,  you  have 
"  given  them  another.  For  if,  upon  the  Foot  of  the  common  In- 
*■'  terpretation,  they  think  they  fee  a  Violation  of  the  natural  Law ; 

*  Confiderations,  p.  164,  165. 

"  they 


4*1  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

*'  tlicv  may,  upon  your  Interpretation,  alledge  an  Inconfiflency  of 
*'  the  Scriptures  with  themfclves :  and  I  apprehend.  Sir,  that  it  is 
*•  a  much  eafier  Thing  to  (hew  that  the  Command  carries  no  Vio- 
*'  lation  of  the  natural  Law,  the  common  Interpretation  admitted  ; 
"■  than  it  will  be  to  reconcile  your  Hypothefis  to  the  Scripture  Ac- 
**  count  of  this  Matter.  So  much  has  Chriftianity  gained  by  your 
*'  Interpretation  *  !" — But  I  leave  him  to  the  Reader's  Mercy. 

XXIII. 

"  But  this  is  not  the  greateft  Difficulty  you  have  to  account  for 
•«  (fays  he).  The  Objeftion  relates  not  to  Abraham  only,  but  alfo 
*'  to  his  Family  ;  who  (as  you  have  made  your  Unbeliever  fay) 
•'  MUST  NEEDS  havc  thought  human  Sacrifices  acceptable  to  God \ 
*'  becaufe  the  Adion  was  wot.  formally  condemned  -iX.  the  Revocation 
"  of  the  Command.  I  do  think,  Sir,  that  it  would  be  a  very  con- 
t'  fiderable  objection  to  this  Hiftory  ;  if  it  did  give  any  reafonable 
*'  Encouragement  to  the  Belief,  that  human  Sacrifices  were  accept- 
««  able  to  God  ;  and  I  have  given  my  Reafon  why  I  think  it  caii- 
"  not  give  any  fuch  Encouragement ;  which  is  that,  in  this  Cafe, 
*'  the  Revocation  of  the  Command,  without  any  formal  Condem- 
"  nation  of  the  A£tion,  is  fufficient  to  guard  againft  any  fuch  Abufe. 
*'  Whether  you  agree  with  me  in  this  Principle,  or  whether  you  are 
"  of  the  infidel  Side  of  the  Queftion  in  this  particular  Point,  you  have 
*'  not  told  us ;  nor  (hall  1  take  upon  me  to  guefs.  But  you  are  fully 
"  perfuaded,  that,  upon  your  Hypothefis,  the  Objedion  Is  entirely 
*'  removed.  Your  Words  are  thefe ;  There  was  not  the  kajl  Occa~ 
*^fion,  when  God  remitted  the  Offering  o/Ifaac,  that  he  Jloould formally 
"  condemn  human  Sacrifices^  to  prevent  Abraham,  or  his  family's 
^^  falling  into  an  Opinion,  that  fuch  Sacrifices  were  not  difpleafng  to 
*•  him — Vor  the  Command,  having,  as  we  faid,  no  moral  Import ; 
*«  being  only  an  Information  by  ASlion,  where  one  Thing  food  for  the 

*  Confid.p.  165. 

«  Repre- 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  463 

•'  Rcprefeniail've  of  another ;  all  the  Conjlqwnce  ibat  could  be  deduced 
^^  from  it  was  only  this  ;  that  the  Son  of  Godjbotild  be  offered  up  for 
*'  the  Sins  of  Mankind:  Therefore  the  Conceptions  they  [Abraham, 
"  v'.z.  AND  HIS  family]  had  of  human  Sacrifices  :i{tct  the  Command, 
"  muf  needs  bejufl  the  fame  which  they  had  before  ;  and  therefore^ 
"  InfruBion  concerning  the  execrable  Nature  of  human  Sacrifices  was 
*'  not  only  ncedlefs,  but  quite  befide  the  ^eJlion\  ^.  618,  619  *,  1 
"  can  eafily  underftand,  Sir,  how  the  Matter  Hood  with  Abra- 
"  kam\  and  that  he  was  in  no  Danger  of  being  mifled,  as  to  the 
"  Nature  of  human  Sacrifices,  who  knew  the  Secret  of  the  whole 
"  Afllxir  ;  and  that  it  was  nothing  elfe  but  Scenery.  But  how  this 
"  Anfwer  will  ferve  for  his  Family  ;  who  are  to  be  prefumed  to  have 
*'  known  nothing  of  this fcenical  Refrefentation,  is  utterly  pad  my 
"  Comprehenfion.  I  fay  that  the  Family  of  Abraham  muf  be  pre- 
'■'■  fumed  to  have  known-  nothing  of  this  fcenical  Reprefentation  ; 
"  becaufe  you  have  told  us  from  the  very  firft,  that  the  Informa- 
"  tion  to  be  conveyed  by  it  was  intended  for  Abraham''s  sole 
"  Use  ;  and  I  do  not  fee  how  Abraham  could  open  to  his  Family 
"  the  Scenery  of  the  Tranfa6lion,  without  explaining  the  Myfery. 
"  Accordingly,  your  Anfwer,  in  this  very  Paffage,  imports,  that 
*'  Abrahanis  Family,  as  well  as  himfelf,  ivere  acquainted  with  this 
"  Myftery  ;  for  you  fay  that  all  the  Confequence  that  could  be  di- 
"  ducedfrom  this  Tranfaftlon  was,  that  the  Son  of  Godfmild  be  cf- 
'■'■  fred  up  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind.  All  the  Confequence  that  could 
*'  be  deduced  !  By  whom  ?  Why,  by  the  Family  of  Abraham  ;  for 
*'  to  them,  as   well  as  to  Abraham,  does  the  Inference,  which  you 

"  immediately  fubjoln,  belong Therefore  the  Conceptions  they 

*'  had  of  human  Sacrifices  mufl  needs  bejujl  the  fame,  &c.  But  is  not 
«'  your  putting  the  Family  of  Abraham  in  Pojfejfion  of  this  Confe- 
•*  quence  a  very  plain  Declaration,  that,  they  knew  the  Myflery 
"  of  ChrifTs  Sacrifice  !  Now  therefore,  Sir,  take  your  Choice,  and 
*'  give  up  one  Part  of  your  H}'pothefis,  or  the  other,  as  bed  pleafes 

*  Ed.  4to.  vol.  111.  p.  400. 

"  you  ; 


^6+         REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

**  you  ;  for  to  liold  both  is  impofTible.  If  you  fay  that  the  Family 
*'  oi  Abraham  were  acquainted  with  the  Myflery  of  ChriJTs  Sacri- 
««  fice  ;  it  will  overturn  all  you  have  faid  concerning  their  Igno- 
"  ranee  of  a  future  State  :  For  to  what  Purpofe  the  Son  of  God 
•'  was  to  be  offered  up  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind,  if  no  Life  is  to  be 
••'  expeded  after  tliis,  it  is  impoflible  to  comprehend.  It  likewife 
*«  overturns  thejingk  Reafoa  you  have  given  why  the  Explanation 
*'  (ufu.ll  in  all  fuch  Cafes)  to  fhew  the  Import  of  the  Tranfadlion 
*'  was  not  added,  riz.  that  it  was  a  Point  «<5/7$V  for  common  Knotv- 
**  ledge.  But  if  you  fhall  chufe  to  fay,  that  the  Revelation  of  this 
*•  Myftery,  was  for  the  sole  Information  of  Abraham,  and  that  his 
«'  Family  knew  nothing  of  it  (which  I  think  you  muJI  fay,  to  make 
**  your  Interpretation  good),  the  Objeftion  will  lie  full  againftyou, 
*'  unanfwered.  For  upon  this  fuppofition,  fhey  mufl  have  con- 
"  fidered  this  Tranfadlion,  not  in  your  artificial,  hidden  Light,  but 
*'  in  its  apparent,  natural  Light ;  and  the  Conftru£tion  in  favour 
*'  of  human  Sacrifices  muft  have  been  the  very  fame,  as  if  no  fucli 
"  Reprefentation  as  you  fpeak  of  had  been  intended  *." 

*'  Whether  ffays  he)  you  agree  with  me,  or  are  of  the  Infi- 
*'  DEL  SIDE  OF  THE  QUESTION."  A  dire  Dilemma  !  to  which  he 
reduces  all  his  Adverfaries.  Agree  not  with  him,  and  you  are  at 
once  on  the  Infidel  Side  of  the  Sluefiion. 

*'  Qui  meprife  Cotin,  n'eftime  point  fon  Roi, 
*'  Et  n'a,  felon  Cotin,  ni  Dieu,  ni  foi,  ni  loi. 

But  if  this  be  my  Alternative,  fit  anima  men  cum  philofophis,  as  was 
faid  on  the  like  occafion  ;  they  are  much  the  better  Company. — I 
believed  that  an  Infidel  Objedtion  to  the  Command  to  Abraham,  on 
the  common  Interpretation  of  it,  had  weight ;  and  1  explain  the 
Force  of  it,  in  order  to  remove  it ;  and  to  excite  other  Defenders  of 
Revelation  to  confider  it :  For  which,  it  feems,  I  am  of  the  Infidel 
fide  of  the  §uefiion. 

*.  Co^fid,  p.  165 — 168, 

I  had 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  465 

I  had  faid,  that  the  Corc\m^nAvj:i%  {or  Mrabam*s  fole  ufc;  and 
*'  therefore  (he  Jays)  that  X.]\e¥;\m\\y  oi  Abraham  mufi:  be  prcfumed 
*'  to  know  nothing  of  this  fcenlcal  Reprefcntatiou,"  Notwlth- 
ftanding  this,  /  prefume  they  did  know  it.  Here  he  takes  me  in 
a  flagrant  Contradidion.  But  did  he  indeed  not  fee  that  where  I 
fpoke  of  its  being  given  for  Abraham^  file  Ufe^  I  was  oppofing  it, 
(as  the  courfe  of  my  Argument  required),  not  to  the  Family  which 
lived  under  his  Tents,  but  to  tlie  JciviJJ}  People,  when  the  Hillory 

of  the  Tranfaiftion  was  recorded*? And  now   having  expofcd 

his  wrong  Conclufion  from  my  Words,  let  us  confider  next 
the  wrong  Conclufion  he  draws  from  his  own.  "  I  do  not 
*'  fee  (fays  he)  how  Abraham  could  open  to  his  Family  the 
"  Scenery  of  the  Tranfadlion  without  explaining  the  Alyftery." 
What  does  he  mean  by,  "  open  the  Scenery  of  the  Tranf- 
'*  adion?"  There  are  two  Senfes  of  this  ambiguous  Expreffion ; 
it  may  fignify,  either  explaining  the  Moral  of  the  Scenery ;  or 
fimply,  telling  his  Family  that  the  Tranjadlion  ivas  a  fcenical  Re- 
prejentation.  He  could  not  here  ufe  the  Phrafe  in  the  firft  Senfe, 
becaufe  he  makes  explaining  the  Myjiery  a  thing  diflerent  from  open- 
ing the  Scenery.  He  muft  mean  it  then  in  the  latter.  But  could 
not.  Abraham  tell  his  F^mWy^  that  this  was  z  fcenical  Reprefentation 
without  explaining  the  Myjiery?  I  don't  know  what  fliould  hinder 
him,  unlefs  it  were  a  Charm.  If  he  had  the  free  ufe  of  Speech, 
I  think,  he  might,  in  the  Tranfports  of  his  Joy,    on  his  return 

*  Here  the  Letter  Writer,  fo  often  mentioned  before,  is  ([uite  fcandalized  ;   and  can- 

not  forbear  [breaking  out,  at  p.  77. "  I  declare  it,  if  you  be  Dr.  S ,  I  am  per- 

♦'  fefily  alloniflied  at  you."  But  lb  am  not  I.  The  good  Man  knows  nothing  of  the 
Contagion  of  Controverfy.  He  feenis  to  hsve  ftudied  his  Piofeflion  with  an  Intent  only 
of  coming  to  the  Truth  ;  and  he  fpeaks  from  the  Heart.  His  who'e  I'ampliiet  is  a 
learnedand  well-argued  Performance  {  And  if  he  has  been  more  attentive  to  the  Force 
of  his  Reafoning  than  to  the  Ornaments  of  his  Language,  the  Lovers  of  Truth  have 
the  more  to  thank  him  for,  as  he  gives  her  to  them  undrcflcd,  and  puts  a  Glofs  upoa 
nothing. 

Vol.  VI.  O  o  o  hoiiK-, 


^66  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

home,  tell  his  Wife,  "  that  God  had  ordered  him  to  facrifice  his 
•'  Son,  and  that  he  had  carried  him  to  Mount  A/or/«2^,  in  Obedience 
««  to  the  Divine  Command,  where  a  Ram  was  accepted  in  his 
»«  Head.  But  that  the  whole  was  a  mere  fcenical  Reprefentation,  or 
«  Figure,  of  a  myfterious  Trandiaion  which  God  had  ordained  to 
«*  come  to  pafs  in  the  latter  Ages  of  the  World."  And  1  fuppofe 
when  he  had  once  told  his  Wife,  the  Family  would  foon  hear  of  it. 
Now  could  they  not  underftand,  what  was  meant  by  a  fcenical 
Reprefnilation,  as  well  when  he  told  them  it  was  to  prefigure  a 
My/iery,  as  if  he  had  told  them  it  was  to  prefigure  the  Crucifixion 
of  Jtfus  ?  The  Explanation,  here  given,  had  I  no  other  way  of 
blunting  his  Dilemma  (for  if  I  efcape  his  Contradiction,  he  has  fct 
his  Dilemma,  which,  he  fays,  'tis  impoffible  I  fliould  avoid)  had  I 
nothing  elfe,  I  fay,  'tis  very  likely  I  (hould  have  infifted  upon  this: 
But  there  are  more  ways  than  one  of  taking  him  by  his  Horns. 
"  Now  therefore  (fays  he)  take  your  Choice,  and  give  up  one  Part 
*'  of  your  Hypothefis  or  the  other,  as  beft  pleafes  you  ;  for  to 
"  HOLD  BOTH  IS  IMPOSSIBLE.  Ifyou  fay  that  the  Family  of  ^(^r^- 
"  ham  were  acquainted  with  the  Myftery,  it  will  overturn  all  you 
•'  fald  concerning  their  Ignorance  of  a  future  State. — But  if  you 
"  fhall  chufe  to  fay  that  the  Revelation  of  the  Myflery  was  for  the 
*'  fole  Information  of  Abraham,  and  that  his  Family  knew  nothing 
*'  of  it,  then — the  Conftruilion  in  fiwour  of  human  Sacrifices  muft 
♦*  have  been  the  very  fame  as  if  no  fuch  Reprefentation,  as  you 
"  fpeak  of,  had  been  intended."  I  defire  to  know  where  it  is  that 
I  fpoke  ANY  THING  Concerning  Abraham's  F<7»7//)''j  Ignorance  of  a 
future  State  ;  and  therefore  call  upon  him,  for  the  %%^%lp  31BD 
3L3€)C  C31SP<ZB,  to  name  the  Place.  But,  I  am  afraid,  fome- 
thing  is  wrong  here  again  :  and  that,  by  Abraham^ s  Family,  he 
means  the  Ifraeliles  under  Mofes's  Policy.  For,  with  regard  to  them, 
I  did  indeed  fay  that  the  grofs  Body  of  the  People  were  ignorant 
of  a  future  State.  But  then  I  fuppofed  them  equally  ignorant  of  the 
true  Import  of  the  Command  to  Abraham.     But,  if,  by  Abraham's 

Family^ 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.         467 

Tamily,  he  means,  as  every  Man  does,  who  means  honcftly,  thofe 
ivhorefidtdwith  him  under  his  Tenis^  I  fuppofe  tliem  indeed  acquaint- 
ed with  the  true  Import  of  the  Command  ;  but  then,  at  the  fame 
time,  not  ignorant  of  a  future  State.  Thus  what  our  Examiner 
had  pronounced  impossible,  was,  it  feems,  all  the  while  very 
poflible.  And,  in  fpite  of  his  Dilemma,  both  Parts  of  the  Hvpo- 
thefis  were  at  peace.  I  can  hardly  think  him  fo  grofsly  immoral 
as  to  have  put  this  Trick  upon  his  Reader  with  Defign  ;  I  rather 
think  it  was  fome  confufed  Notion  concerning  the  Popifli  Virtue  of 
Tradition  (that  trufty  Conveyancer  of  Truth)  which  led  liim 
into  all  this  Abfurdity  ;  and  made  him  conclude,  that  what  Abra- 
j6d;«'i  Family  once  knew,  their  pofterity  could  never  forget.  Though 
the  Written  Word  tells  us,  that  when  Mofes  was  fent  to  redeem  this 
Pofterity  from  Bondage,  they  remembered  fo  little  of  God's  Reve^ 
lations  to  their  Fore-fathers,  that  they  knew  nothing  even  of  his 
Nature. 

XXIV. 

Our  Examiner  now  concludes  his  Confiderations  (which  we  have 
<^uoted  Word  for  Word  in  order  as  they  lye,  without  curtailing  or 
abridging)  in  this  manner.  •'  Thus,  Sir,  it  appears ;  that  what  was 
*'  loell  before  comes  out  bady  from  under  your  Hands.  Which 
*'  confirms  to  me,  what  1  have  often  thought ;  that  Experiments  in 
*'  Religion  are  feldom  good  for  any  thing.  The  Truth  of  this 
*'  whole  Cafe,  appears  to  me  in  this  plain  Light.  God  called 
*'  Abraham  to  this  great  Trial ;  to  make  him  an  Example  of  Faith 
*'  and  Refignaiion.  Abraham  obeys  God's  Call ;  under  a  full  Per- 
*■*  fuafion  that  his  Son  was  lojl  to  him  ;  and  yet  as  fully  affured  that 
*'  the  Promlfes  of  God  fhould  not  fill.  In  this  View  he  is  an  Ex- 
*'  ample  of  both ;  and  thus  much  the  Scriptures  ivarrant.  We, 
**  who  fee  the  Refcmblance  between  this  Cafe,  and  God's  requiring 
"  his  only  Son  to  be  offered  up  as  a  Sacrifice  for  the  Sins  of  the 
"  whole  World,  rightly  fay,  that  the  one  was  intended  to  be  the 
O  o  o  2  "  higurt 


468         REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 
««  Figure  of  the  other.     But  whetlier  Abraham  knew  any  thing  at 
«•  all  of  Cbrifs  Sacrifice',  or  whether  he  knew  nothing;  the  Scrlp- 
*♦  tore  \%  wholly  fxlcnt\  and  you  ought  to  have  been  filent  too.     It 

*'  is  fit  for  us  to  ftop  where  the  Scripture  ilops and  let  Infidelity 

"  do  its  word:  ■•" 

"  Wliat  was  well  before,  comes  out  bad,  it  feems,  "  under  my 
«•'  iiands ;"  which  confirms  him  in  a  "  Thought  he  often  had,  that 

•'  EXPERIJIENTS     IN     RELIGION     ARE     SELDOM    GOOD    FOR    ANY 

*»  THING."  By  the  way  though  this  feems  but  an  odd  Compliment 
to  the  many  fine  Experiments ^  which  a  great  Prelate  of  his  Acquain- 
tance has  made  in  Religion.  However,  that  he  often  had  this  Thought, 
I  do  not  at  all  doubt.  The  thing  I  leaft  expefted  was,  that  he  fhould 
venture  to  tell  his  Thoughts.  But,  in  the  Paroxyfm  of  Jnfwer-^ 
ing,  out  it  came  ;  and  from  a  Man  not  the  beft  formed  by  Nature 
aperto  vivere  voto.  Writers,  indeed,  have  differed  much  how  thefe 
Experiments  fliould  be  made.  2)orcie  wowlA  hzve  Scripture  alone 
employed  in  making  them :  others  were  for  taking  in  Fathers  and 
Councils ;  and  fome  again  for  applying  Raillery  and  Ridicule  to  the 
Work.  But  I  know  of  no  Proteftant  till  our  Examiner,  whoever 
talked  againft  the  thing  itfelf.  That  Language  had  been  now,  for 
near  two  hundred  Years,  confined'  to  the  Walls  of  the  Inquifition. 
For  what  is  making  Experiments  in  Religion,  but  illuftrating  it  by 
new  Arguments,  arifing  from  new  Difcoveries  made  of  the  Har- 
mony in  God's  various  Difpenfations  to  Mankind  ;  juft  as  Philofo- 
phers  unfold  Nature,  by  new  Enquiries  into  the  Contents  of  Bodies  ? 
No  Experiments,  is  the  Language  indeed  of  Politicians  (for 
in  fome  things  Bigotry  and  Politics  agree ;  as  Extremes  run  eafily 
into  one  another,  by  their  very  Endeavour  to.  keep  at  diftance), 
becaufe,  according  to  the  Politician's  Creed,  Religion  being  ufeful 
to  the  State,  and  yet  not  founded  in  Truth,  all  Inquiries  tend,  not 
to  confirm,  but  to  unfettle,  this  neceflary  Support  of  Civil  Govern- 
ment.    But  can  a  Man  who  believes  Religion  to  have  come  froov 

*  Confld.  p.  169. 

God, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  46(^ 

CJod,  ufc  this  I^anguage !  If  he  pretends  to  believe,  and  will  yet 
talk  at  fo  fcandalous  a  rate,  let  me  aik  him,  how  it  comes  to  pafs, 
that  Experiinerits,  which  do  fuch  Service  in  our  Advancement  in 
the  Knowledge  of  Nature,  {hould  fucceed  fo  ill  in  Religion  ?  Are 
not  both  equally  the  Works  of  God  ?  Were  not  both  given  to  be 
the  Subjed  of  human  Contemplation  ?  Have  not  both,  as  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Great  Mafter  of  the  Univerfe,  their  Depths  and 
Darknefles  ?  And  does  not  the  unveiling  the  Secrets  of  his  Provi- 
dence tend  equally  with  the  unveiling  the  Secrets  of  his  Work- 
vianjlo'ip,  to  the  Advancement  of  his  Glory  ?  Have  not  the  Wif- 
dom  and  Goodnefs  of  God  been  wonderfully  difplayed,  in  thefc 
ktter  Ages,  to  the  Confufion  oi  Atbetjm,  by  fome  noble  Experi- 
ments made  in  Nature  ?  And  why  fliould  not  the  fame  Wifdom 
and  Goodnefs  be  equally  difplayed,  to  the  Confufion  of  Df //;;/,  by- 
Experiments  made  in  Religion  ?  1  believe  I  fhould  not  be  accufed 
of  Vanity,  even  by  our  Examiner  himfelf  in  his  better  Mood, 
lliould  I  venture  to  appeal  to  The  Divine  Legation  itfelf,  for  the 
Possibility  of  the  thing:  For  he  has  been  gracioufly  pleafed  to 
allow,  that  *'  what  1  have  faid  of  Converfe  being  maintained  by 
"Ad  ions  as  well  as  by  Words,  is  very  juft;  and  that  the  Inftanccs 
"  I  have  produced  from  Scripture,  where  Adions  have  been  ufed' 
*'  as  forefliewing  the  Determinations  of  Providence,  are  beyond  all 
*'  Exception  *."  Now  here,  I  prefume,  his  Modefty  will  confcfs, 
that  I  have  taught  him  fomething  Ne'w  ;  both  in  the  Principle,, 
and  in  the  following  Application  of  it  to  the  Primary  and  Secon- 
dary Senfe  of  Prophecies.  But  if  ever  there  was  an  Expen?ncnt 
made  in  Religion,  this  was  one ;  it  being  deduced  from  a  careful 
Anaiyjis  of  the  {c^it^A  vtiuoxis  Modes  of  human  Communication. 
In  a  word,  had  no  Experiments  been  made  in  Nature,  we  had  fi:ill 
flept  in  the  Ignorance  and  Error  of  School-Phi/ofophy :  And  had 
noie  been  made  in  Religion,  we  had  flill  been  groping  about,  and' 
ftumbling  in  the  Darknefs  and  Superftitioa  of  School-Divinity.  For, 

*  Confid.  p.  153, 

wlir.t; 


470  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL       • 

what  were  they,  but  Experinunts  in  Religion,  made  by  a  Wichliff, 
a  Cranmer,  a  Calvin^  an  Erafmus,  a  Hooker,  that  refcued  us  from 
that  Darknefs  and  Superftition  ?  Or  is  making  Experiments,  like 
making  Gunpowder,  a  Monopoly  ?  that  none  are  to  be  intruded 
with  it,  in  Religion,  but  great  Names,  and  Fathers  of  the  Church  ; 
and  none,  in  Nature,  but  Fellows  of  the  Society.  The  worft  Mif- 
chlef  they  ever  do  is,  now  and  then,  blowing  up  an  indlfcreet 
Divine,  when  he  comes  too  near,  and  tramples  upon  them  with 
Security  and  Contempt.  To  repay  our  Examiner,  therefore,  one 
Secret  for  another ;  I  will  tell  him  what  1  have  often  thought,  and 
what  his  own  Words  confirm,  "  That  he  who  can  talk  in  this 
*'  manner,  whatever  face  he  may  put  on,  muft  needs  have  his 
*'  Doubts  and  Fears  about  the  Truth  of  that  Religion  which  he  fo 
**  peevlfhly  defends." — "  Abraham  (foys  he)  obeys  God's  Call  under 
■*'  a  FULL  Persuasion  that  his  Son  was  loft  to  him."  So!  the 
Doubt  is  now  determined.  Before,  it  was  only  "  That  i/27<7c  might, 
*'  for  aught  Abraham  knew,  be  for  ever  loft  to  him."  But  this  it 
is  for  a  Writer  to  have  a  full  Perftiafon  both  of  hlmfelf  and  his 
Reader. 

*'  We  who  SEE  ffays  he)  the  Resemblance  between  this  Cafe 
*'  \the  ASiion  commafided'^  and  God's  requiring  his  only  Son  to  be 
*'  offered  up  as  a  Sacrifice,  for  the  Sins  of  the  whole  World,  right- 
*'  LY  fay,  that  the  one  was  intended  to  be  the  Figure  of  the  other." 
Thefe  Seers  by  Refemblance  into  Fadls,  are  like  the  Seers  by  Second' 
fight  into  Futurity  :  That  is  to  fay,  equally  under  the  Power  of  the 
Imagination  ;  which,  whatever  light  it  may  afford  to  them,  yet 
leaves  their  Readers  ftill  in  the  dark.  As  to  this  feeing  by  Rcfeni' 
hlance  in  particular,  the  Reader  may,  if  he  pleafes,  confiilt  the 
XVIlIth  Remark  for  all  that  is  neceffary  to  be  fald  on  thatSubje£V. 

«*  But  whether  Abraham  (fays  he)  knew  any  thing  at  all  of 
*'  Chrijfs  Sacrifice,  or  whether  he  knew  nothing,  the  Scripture  is 
*'  wholly  filent :  and  you  ought  to  have  been  silent  too." 
To  this  I  reply,  in  the  firfi  place,  that  the  Reafon  why  1  was  not 
fileni\vz%,  becaufe  Scripture  itfelf  was  «o///^«/;  but,  in  the  Words 

of 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  471 

of  JcfuSy  declared,  that  Abraham  did  know  of  CbriJTs  Sacrifice. 
Secondly,  I  do  not  fee  why,  even  though  Scripture  had  been  Jilcnty 
I  ought  to  have  been  Jilent  too.  Scripture  is  filent  concerning  the 
Subjlance  of  the  Son.  But  (o  are  not  you  ;  who,  I  make  no  doubt, 
declare  at  leaft,  that  he  is  of  one  Subjlance  with  the  Father.  And 
why  do  you  fo  ?  Becaufe  (you  will  fay,  and  you  will  fay  true) 
that,  although  this  Propofition  be  not  expreffed  in  the  Bible,  in  fo 
many  Words  ;  yet  it  is  to  be  deduced  from  Scripture  Doctrine,  by 
the  mofi:  known  Principles  of  Philofophy  and  Logic.  Why  then 
will  you  not  allow  we  the  Benefit  of  the  fame  Anfwer,  in  the  pre- 
fent  Cafe. — But  in  another  Mood  he  can  be  angry  with  me  for  being 
filcnt  where  Scripture  is  filent.  And  for  not  fpeaklng  out  when 
that  only  gives  a  Sign.  "  You  fay  nothing  ffays  he)  of  AbrahanCs 
*'  Virtue,  his  Patience  and  Self-denial,  yet  Scripture  points  at 
*«  them.'; 

But  "  It  is  fit  f  he  fays)  for  us  to  flop  where  the  Scripture  flops." 
— With  how  good  a  grace,  and  how  pertinently  too,  this  Maxim 
may  be,  fometimes,  applied  ;  I  fhall  beg  leave  to  obferve  ;  that, 
with  regard  to  ihe  fundame?Jta I  Points  of  the  Chrijlian  Faith,  it  is, 
indeed,  fit  we  fliould  flop  where  the  New  Testament  flops  ; 
becaufe  that  is  able  to  make  us  wife  unto  Salvation  ;  and  becaufe 
there  is  now  no  reafonable  Expedatlon  of  any  further  Revelation 
of  God's  Will  to  us,  that  fhall  refer  to  this,  and  be  explanatory  of 
it.  But  with  regard  to  an  hijlorical  Paflage,  told  obfcurely  (for  tiie 
wife  Ends  of  God's  Difpenfations,  which  opened  gradually  'upon 
Mankind)  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  the  New  refers  and 
is  explanatory  ;  There,  I  hope,  we  may  go  on,  without  Prefump- 
tlon,  to  fhew  how,  from  fuch  a  Paflage,  inay  be  demonfl:ratcd 
the  real  Connexion  and  Dependency  between  the  two  Covenants* 
Yet,  by  the  ftrangeft  Perverfity,  there  are  Men  who  will  not  flop 
in  the  firft  Cafe ;  and,  in  the  fecond,  will  not  go  forward.  But 
whatever  our  Examiner's  Notions  be ;  it  is  plain,  he  took  his  Ex- 
frejjions  from  fomebody  who  applied  the  Maxim  to  a  Maker  ofNsxo- 
Fundamentals.     For  fuch  a  one,  only,  it  is  feen  to  fit.     "  In  Con- 

"  clufion. 


^-2  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

*'  clufion  ffijys  he)  let  Infidemtv  do  its  worst."  And  fo  it 
inav,  tor  what  our  Examiner  or  his  Fellows  feem  inclined  to  op- 
poie  to  its  Frogrels.  They  keep  guani,  as  our  Author  fays  ;  they 
perform  Watch  and  Ward  as  the  Law  requires  :  and  let  fuch  as 
like  it  go  to  blows  for  thetn.  One  of  my  moft  abufive  Adverfaries, 
in  a  Book  he  wrote  againft  me,  intituled,  A  Reply  to  Mr.  IV.'s  Ap- 
pendix in  his  fecond  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legation^  has  a  long  DI- 
grcflion  (for  it  has  nothing  to  do  in  the  Difpute  between  him  and 
me)  of  Seventy  Pages,  to  prove  that  the  Miracles  and  Morality  of 
Paganifm  equal  thoje  oi  Judaifm  and  Chrijlianity :  In  which  he  has 
made  a  very  elaborate  Colledlion  of  Paffages  from  Claffic  Writers, 
drawn  up  and  fet  in  battle  array  againft  parallel  Places  of  Scripture. 
Eight  or  Ten  Clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England  have  found 
Leifure  and  Inclination  to  write  againft  The  Divine  Legation,  nobody 
knows  for  what ;  and  yet  not  one  of  them  has  taken  the  leaft  notice 
of  this  open  bare-faced  Infult  and  Defiance  of  Revelation.  But 
what  then  ?  Mr.  Tillard,  no  doubt,  was  confidered  by  them  as  a 
Fellow- labourer  in  a  good  Caufe.  Or  was  It,  for  that  he  is  an 
adlive  Member  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gofpel  in 
Foreign  Parts  f  of  which,  indeed,  in  thefe  Paffages  he  has  given 
a  Proof.  For  finding  it  was  for  ftaying  at  home,  he,  like  a  good 
Member  as  he  is,  does  his  beft  to  fend  it  packing! — But  ftlll,  fays 
cur  Examiner,  "  let  Infidelity  do  its  worft."  And  does  lie  Indeed 
think  it  could  do  worfe  than  what  himfelf  has  here  attempted  ?  I 
had  wrote  a  DiJJertation  ;  which,  If  it  has  any  Reality  or  Founda- 
tion, \n  Reafon  ox  Scriptture,  is  of  the  higheft  Service  to  Religion: 
And,  principally,  on  thefe  Two  Accounts,  firft,  as  refcuing  a  Paf- 
fage  out  of  the  hands  of  Libertines,  which  was  more  obnoxious  to 
the  Objeftlons  of  Infidelity  than  any  in  the  whole  Bible :  And  fe- 
condly,  as  difcovering  a  real  and  fubftantial  Circumftance  of  Con- 
nexion and  Dependency  between  the  Old  and  Neia  Teftament ;  not 
fubjed  to  any  of  thok  Objedlons  which  arife  from  Typical  or  Al- 
legorical Interpretations.  Now,  againft  fuch  a  Difcourfe,  fo  direifl- 
ed,  was  it  natural  to  conceive,  that  a  Divine  of  Name  (hould  addrefs 

himfelf. 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  473 

hlmfelf,  wltli  much  Haughtinefs  nnd  Malice,  to  write  an  elaborate 
Confutation  ?  Would  not  a  good  Man,  who  had  a  real  Regard  for 
the  Interefls  of  Religion,  and  was  perfuaded  of  the  Wcaknefs  of 
my  Difcourfe,  have  left  it  to  Ibme  unthinking,  unbelieving  Scribler, 
to  expofe  ?  And  here,  let  me  call,  ferioufly,  upon  this  learned  Man-, 
to  lay  his  Hand  upon  his  Heart,  and  to  acquit  hlmfelf  of  his  Inten- 
tions, before  the  P«MV ;  who  finding  nothing  in  this  D'JJiruiiion 
(how  erroneous  focver  it  may  be  deemed)  either  of  Herefy  or  Liber- 
tinifm,  will  needs  be  at  a  lofs  to  difcover  any  good  Purpofe,  in  aii 
Attempt  fo  feemingly  inconfiftent  with  hisCharafter  and  ProfeHion. 
For  the  Public  fees  he  has  taken  the  Unbelievers'  Talk  out  of  tlieir 
hands,  and  executed  it  with  fuch  a  Spirit,  as  cannot  chufe  but  give 
them  the  higheft  Satisfn6i:ion. 

*'  Iloclthacus  veht,  et  magno  mercentur  Atridaj." 


VoL.VL  Ppp  SOON 


^74  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 


SOON  after  the  Publication  of  Dr.  Stel)h'ing''s  Examinalioji ; 
another  Book  came  out  againfl:  me,  as  much  larger  in  Bulk  as 
honefter  in  its  Produftion  :  For  it  carried  the  Name  of  its  Author, 
Dr.  A.  A,  Sykes,  in  the  Front.  To  this  Gentleman,  likewife,  I 
fent  a  civil  Meflage;  To  inform  him,  that  I  had  feen  his  Book,  in 
which  he  likewife  profefles  to  *' examine  my  Account"  (for  they  are 
all  Examiners^  and  would  be  Inquifitors)  "  of  the  Condufl  of  the 
*'  Ancient  Legiflators — Of  the  Double  Doftrine  of  the  Philofo- 
*'  phers — Of  the  Theocracy  of  the  Jews — and  of  Sir  /.  New- 
*'  tori's  Chronology  :"  That  I  fuppofed  he  would  think  himfelf  neg- 
lefted  to  have  no  Notice  taken  of  him  :  That  I  was  not  at  leifure  to- 
go  through  the  Whole  ;  but  that  if  he  would  point  out  to  me  which, 
of  the  Four  Parts  he  chofe  to  truft  to,  I  would  endeavour  to  give 
him  the  Satisfaftion  he  feemed  to  want.  To  this,  he  fent  me  word 
back,  "  That  he  fhould  not  be,  in  the  leaft,  concerned,  were  I  to 
*'  forbear  all  Notice  of  him  :  but,  if  I  took  any,  that  he  hoped  I 
"  would  keep  to  the  Merits  of  his  Book  :  That  he  was  not  to  chufe 
♦'  for  me  ;  but  that  he  thought,  One  or  Two  of  the  Parts  were 
*'  more  immediately  to  the  Purpofe  to  clear  up  :  But  expelled  that 
"  this  fhould  be  done  in  fuch  a  manner  as  every  good  Man  wiflies ; 
•'  in  the  Love  of  Truth,  and  in  the  Spirit  of  one  that  feeks  it : 
«'  And  that  then  I  fhould  find,  in  him,  a  Mind  open  to  Convic- 
"  tion."  All  this  was  very  well :  And,  from  the  Reafonablenefs 
of  the  Demand,  who  would  not  believe,  but  his  Book  was  a  Stan- 
dard of  Candour,  Politenefs,  and  Ingenuity  ?  at  leaft,  who  would 
have  fufpeded  the  contrary  r     So  that  his  civil  Preliminary,  when 

interpreted 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.        475 

interpreted  on  the  Principles  of  the  Double-DoSlrinc,  is  in  plain 
EngliJIj  this, — That  the  Liberties,  which  he  and  old  honefl:  Mr.  P. 
have  fo  freely  taken  with  my  Book  and  Charadlcr,  fhould  be  en- 
tirely overlooked,  or  received  as  Compliments  :  And  that  I  (hould 
addrefs  myfelf  to  their  Convidion,  as  to  the  Service  of  my  Two  bcft: 
Friends,  who  wrote  only  to  recommend  the  Truths  I  had  advanced  ; 
by  putting  me  in  a  way  to  remove  all  Doubts  and  Difficulties  con- 
cerning them.  "  And  therefore,  that  I  fliould  keep  to  the  Merits 
*'  of  his  Book  ;"  that  is,  be  tender  of  his  bad  Logic,  and  worfe  Crl- 
ticifm  ;  overlook  his  ill  Expreffion  ;  and  find  out  his  Meaning  if  I 
can.  And,  Indeed,  who  would  not  engage  in  any  Labour  for  the 
fake  of  finding  fo  rare  a  Curiofity,  as  a  "Mind  open  to  Convi£tion,'* 
in  an  Anfwerer  by  Profeflion  ?  Well  then,  be  it  fo.  Since  they 
profefs  to  lye  fo  open,  let  them  be  received  with  good  Humour  at 
leaft,  and  fufFered  only  to  expofe  themfelves  ; 

"  Laugh  where  we  mufl:,  be  candid  where  we  can, 

But  vindicate  the  Ways  of  God  to  Man." 

However,  this  Is  a  mere  Aft  of  Good -will ;  and  what  the  Dodlor 
has  not  the  lead  Claim  to  ;  as  may  be  (etw  by  the  preliminary  Con- 
verfation  between  him  and  his  old  Friend  Mr.  P.  Part  of  which  I 
fhall  here  beg  leave  to  tranfcribe  for  the  Reader's  Entertainment  : 

'*  You  know  very  well  (foys  Dr.  Sykes  to  the  Rev.  Gent,  to  whom 
he  addrejfes  his  Examination)  "  our  old  Friend  Mr.  P***  ;  He  calls 
*'  Mr.  IVarburtori  s  Book  a  learned  Romance  ;  and  he  fays,  with 
*'  SOME  Humour,  that  the  Digreffions  in  it  about  the  Myfleries, 
*'  the  Hieroglyphics  *,  the  Book  of  'fob,  are,  or  may  be  deemed, 

«'  fo 

*  Foreigners  feetn  to  have  a  different  Opinion  of  TJ^e  Divine  Legation,  from  thefe 
Two  learned  Friends.  The  Joiiriial  ilet  Sf avails,  Mars  1744,  in  an  Abftraft  of  a  French 
Tranflation  of  Part  of  Tie  Di-vine  Legation,  fpeaks  thus  of  the  Difcourfe  on  the 
Hieroglyphics:  "  11  regne  une  fi  belle  analogic  dans  le  fyfteme  de  M.  Warburron,  S: 
*'  toutes  fes  parties  tiennent  les  uncs  aux  autres  par  un  lien  fi  nature],  qu'on  ell 
"  porte  a  croire  que  I'origine  &  les  progrefs  de  I'Ecriture  &  du  Language  ont  etc  teU 
"  qw'il  les  a  decrjts.    Le  Public  doit  avoir  bien  de  I'obligation  au  Tradudeur  de  lui  avoir 

r  p  p  2  "  fait 


476        REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

*•  fo  many  ingenious  Novels,  which  fcrve  to  relieve  or  divert  the 
«'  Reader.  But  then  he  goes  fo  far  as  to  doubt  whether  Mr.  JVar- 
"  burton  writes  for  UJlity  or  for  Truth.  For  he  has  told  us  fo 
•*  much  (fays  be)  about  the  Practices  of  thofe  old  Fhllofophers,  and 
♦•  how  much  they  were  wont  to  lie  for  the  Public  good — and  he  de- 
«'  clares  hlmfelf  to  have  come  from  the  Schools  of  thofe  Heathen 
*'  Fhllofophers,  that  I  cannot  but  thinIc  he  may  be  rea- 
"  sonably  suspected — to  have  received  an  Infefllon  from  them, 
"  and  to  have  learnt  to  lie  for  the  Public  good,  as  his  Mafters  did 
"  before  him.  It  is  true  (fays  our  Friend)  that  Mr,  Warburton  does 
"  not  think  thofe  Men  to  be  altogether  free  from  Blame  ;  and  it  may 
«'  be  fiild  in  his  favour,  that  what  he  blames  a  little  in  them,  he 
*'  would  not  do  hlmfelf:  But  yet  his  Cenfure  of  them  is  fo  very 
«*  foft,  and  he  is  fo  tender  of  their  moral  Charader,  while  he 
*'  is  fo  ready  to  flame  out  agalnft,  and  to  (hew  no  Mercy  to 
"  others,  who  do  not  think  as  he  does,  that  one  cannot  help  ima- 
**  ginjng,  that  in  his  Opinion,  the  good  End  they  had  in  view,  did 
*'  fanftlfy  the  Means  they  ufed,  and  that  it  was  no  great  Fault 

•'  fait  connoitre  un  Ouvrage  fi  curieux.  Mais  il  auroit  efe  a  fouhaiter,  pour  rendre  la 
'"  le£lure  de  fa  traduftion  plus  agreable,  qu'il  ne  fe  fut  pas  fi  fort  attache  a  rendre  mot  a 
••  mot  le  texte  Anglois." 

The  Judgment  of  the  Jefuits  of  Tnt'oux,  \n  their  Journal  of  y«/)>  1744,  differs  not 
much  from  that  of  Paris.  "  M.  Warburton  n'a  pu,  fans  une  erudition  profonde,  uue 
"  leflure  niuremcnt  digeree  &  des  reflexions  infinies  trailer  avec  tant  de  precifion,  de 

"  juflefle,  &:  de  nettete,  un  fujet  dc  lui  meme  fi  difficile  I  mettre  en  ceuvre Les  plus 

*'  favans  hommes  fe  font  laifle  feduire  fur  I'origine  des  Hieroglyphes,  &  la  plupart  orit 
"  regards  un  effet  du  peu  d'experience  des  Egyptiens,  comme  un  rafincment  de  la  plus 
"  myfterieufe  fagefle.    C'efl  cette  erreur  que  M.  Warbunon  s'^applique  particulierement 

•'  a  detruire  dans  la  premiere  partie,    II  le  fait  de  la  maniere  la  plus  naturellc ce 

"  n'eft  point  un  Syfteme  fonde  sur  des  Imaginations  vagues.  Ses  raifonnemens,  fea 
••  preuves,  font  appuiees  fur  des  Faits,  fur  la  Nature  des  [chofes,  &  fur  les  prin>- 
"  cipes  les  plus  lumineux  du  Sens  commun."  But  as  to  this  laft  Teftimony,  I  fliail 
not  chufe  to  infift  upon  it  ;  left  it  Ihould  be  now  faid,  tliat  thefe  famous  modern  Prac- 
ticere  of  the  Double  BoHrine,  and  the  Apologift  for  the  ancient  Inventors  of  it,  had  too 
clofe  an  Underftanding  with.one  another. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  477 

**  in  them  to  have  external  and  internal  Doftrines  *  ;"  6fc.  ^c.  Now 
a  Man  fo  apt  to  fiame  out  would  have  been  as  apt  to  call  tliis  a  piece 
of  dull  fcurrilous  BufFoonry,  in  another  Writer  ;  but  in  fo  candid 
a  Difputant  as  Dr.  Sykes,  who  writes,  we  fee  by  his  own  Words, 
"  in  the  Love  of  Truth,  and  in  the  Spirit  of  one  who  feeks  it,"  I 
can  confider  it  only  as  the  EfFedl  of  a  pious  Zeal  for  tiie  Interefts  of 
Revelation,  which  is  apt  to  warm  itfelf  in  a  Converfation  between 
two  fucii  Friends ;  and  a  charitable  Fear  that  the  Author  of  the  Divine 
Legaticfi  was  indeed  artfully  undermining  the  Foundation,  while 
he  pretended  to  new-fortify  the  Strudure  of  Rehgion :  and  they, 
good  Men,  as  faithful  Centinels,  thought  it  their  Duty  to  give  the 
Alarm.  But  here,  their  candid  Simplicity  of  Manners,  which 
makes  them  utter  Strangers  to  all  the  Tricks  of  Free-thinking,  has 
put  them  upon  a  falfe  Cry.  It  would  be  Charity  therefore  to  fct 
them  right  ;  and,  as  they  have  Minds  fo  open  to  Conviilion,  indeed 
but  "jujiice.  And,  for  this,  all  the  return  I  aik,  is  only  to  fliare 
with  them  in  the  Pleafure,  which  a  clear  Conviction,  that  their 
Sufpicions  were  groundlefs,  muft  needs  give  them. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  this,  it  would  feem  fufficlent  to  obferve,- 
that  if  indeed  the  Divine  Legation  were  written  to  undermine  Rc' 
velation,  and  (as  is  faid)  by  an  Author  initiated  in  "  the  Cabinet 
*'  Councils  of  Old  Lawgivers,"  and  juft  come  '*  from  School,  from 
"  Heathen  Philofophers,"  he  mufl:  have  learnt  very  little  of  his 
Maflers  :  For  ii  is  certainly  the  mofl:  bungling,  ill- contrived  At- 
tempt that  was  ever  made  againft  Revelation.  But  if  this  be  not 
enough,  let  us  go  further,  and  confider,  how  an  artful  Freethinker 
would  probably  have  executed  fuch  a  Defign  as  is  here  laid  to  mv 
Charge.  And  the  fame  Intimacy  in  the  Cabinet-Councils  of  Old 
Lawgivers,  and  in  the  Schools  of  Pagan  Philofophers,  which  makes 
it  fo  unlikely  that  I  could  have  done  no  better  on  fo  good  a  ground  ; 

*  An  Examination  of  Mr.  TVarlurioiii  Account  of  the  Conduft  of  the  Ancient  Legif- 
lators,  of  the  Double  Do<5lrine  of  the  Old  Philofophers,  of  the  Theocracy  of  the  yc.'.'s, 
and  of  Sir  Jfaac  Ncv.'ton's  Chronology,  17449 


478  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

may  enable  me  to  fhew  how  well  a  Scheme  of  this  Nature  might 
be  executed  by  another :  As  the  many  unhappy  Examples  we  have 
ainongft  us,  of  real  Attempts  ngainfl:  Religion,  will  enable  the 
Reader  to  judge  how  near  I  keep  to  Probability.  And  thus  qualified, 
I  take  the  liberty  to  fct  our  Underminer  to  work. 

In  the  firil  place,  I  will  fuppofe  it  not  unlikely,  that,  in  order 
to  conceal  his  Purpofe,  as  well  as  to  carry  on  his  Attacks  more  re- 
gularly, he  fhould  begin  with  an  Outwork  of  Religion,  on  Pretence 
of  fome  Defed  in  its  Conftrudion,  that  might  prejudice  the  De- 
fence of  the  Fort  itfelf.  For  inftance,  let  us  fuppofe  it  to  be  that 
illuftrious  Teftlmony  of  Paganifm,  recorded  by  Phlegon,  for  the 
unnatural  Darknefs  at  the  Crucifixion  *.  Where  fome  Mathemati- 
cal Unbeliever  might  very  fitly  ferve  him  in  the  Poft  of  Engineer. 
When  he  had  tried  what  could  be  made  of  this,  he  might  then 
come  clofer  to  his  Work. 

And,  as  Miracles  and  Prophecies  are  the  two  great  Creden- 
tials of  the  Divine  Legation  of  "Jejus,  he  might  now  proceed  di- 
redly  to  the  Sap. 

And  firfl,  of  the  Miracles,  The  Diftempers  cured  by  'Jefus  were 
of  two  Sorts  ;  Natural,  and  Supernatural.  When  the  latter  are  re- 
moved, the  other  (as  the  Freethinkers  tell  us)  are  eafily  dealt  with. 
The  Force  of  Imagination^  in  the  Patient^  might  be  fuppofed  to 
go  a  great  way ;  and  Natural  Virtue,  m  the  Agent,  a  great  way 
farther.  Thus  long  fmce  (fay  they)  Diftempers  fled  at  Vejpajian^s 
Touch  ;  and  very  lately  at  Abbe  Paris' s  Tomb  :  But,  in  the  ftlll 
more  famous  Cafe  of  Greatrakes  the  IriJJj  Stroker,  both  Caufes  feem'd 
to  concur  to  produce  the  moft  extraordinary  Effeds.  But  neither 
Natural  Virtue,  I  wjft,  nor  Force  of  Imagination,  could  fright  the 
Devil,     Here  now  is  a  Difficulty  worthy  of  him, 

*•  Nunc  animis  opus,  ^nea!  nunc  pe£lore  firmo. 

*  See  a  Differtation  on  the  Eclipfc  mentioned  by  Phlegon.~~By  A.  A.  Sykes,  D.  D. 
i7}«. 

What 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  4;c> 

What  has  he  then  to  do,  but,  under  pretence  of  freeing  the  Guf- 
pel-Hiftory  from  Superftltion,  to  write  the  Scripture  Do^ritie  of 
Derno?iiacs  *  ;  that  is,  to  perfuade  us  that  there  never  was  any  ? 
For  you  muft  know,  the  Scripture  DoSirine  of  a  thing,  is  the 
Phrafe  in  fafhion,  to  prove — nothing.  And  in  this  Service  he 
would  have  the  hardy  and  vaHant  Hobbes  for  his  Precurfor  in 
the  Kingdom  of  Darknefs-\\  or  his  Captain  of  Light-horfe  ^  batrc. 
Vejirade. 

We  have  now  only  one  Stroke  more  to  perfect  our  Mine ;  and 
that  Stroke  Is  at  Prophecies.  Now  Theology  has  divided  the  Pro- 
phecies, that  relate  to  Jefus,  into  Two  Sorts ;  fuch  as  foretel  his 
Miffion  in  a  primary  and  literal  Senfe,  and  fuch  as  foretel  it  only  in 
a  fecondary  and  figurative  :  But  the  Freethinkers  aflure  us  there  was 
no  need  of  this  Divifion  ;  for  that  all  the  Prophecies,  which  relate 
to  Jtftis,  relate  to  him  only  in  a  fecondary  and  figurative  Senfe. 
At  this  Open,  then,  comes  in  our  Underminer  ;  and  fhews  |, 
that  all  Pretence  of  Prophecies  to-  a  double  Meaning  is  fenfelefs  and 
fanatical.  And  here  he  approaches  under  the  Cover  of  the  great 
Collins ;  who  had  fo  deeply  intrenched  himfelf  before  the  place, 
that  he  could  not  of  a  long  time  be  forced ;  and  our  Underminer 
may  be  excufed  if  he  too  haftily  §  concluded,  that  therefore  hs 
never  would. 

I  might  now  turn  to  the  learned  Doftor,  as  little  concerned  as 
he  is  in  all  this  ;  and  aik  him  whether  this  would  not  be  doing 
like  a  Workman.  I  own  him  indeed  a  very  incompetent  Judge  in 
fuch  Matters. '  His  Singlenefs  of  Heart,  his  Simplicity  of  Man- 
ners, his  Zeal  for  Religion,  his  total  Eftrangemcnt  from  Free- 

*  See  An  Enquiry  into  the  Meaning   of  the   Demoniacs  in    the   New  Tcftament, 

1737- 

f  The  Title  given  by  Hobbes  to  the  Fourth  Part  of  Jiis  Leviathan. 

X  See  The  Principles  and  Connexion  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion  diftin;'"iiy 
confidercd.      By  A.  A.  Sykcs,  D.  D.  1740.  p.  221,  &  feq. 

§  See  Divine  Legation,  Vol,  11.  p.  643,  8c  feq.    [Vol.  III.  Book  VL  §  6.  Ed.  410.] 

thinkers 


48o  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

thinkers  and  their  Aits,  make  him  very  unfit  to  be  appealed  to 
on  tills  Occafion.  Yet  methinks  there  is  fomething  lo  ftnkliig  m 
the  Sketch  here  chalked  cut,  that  the  moft  unexperienced  Man 
mufl:  feel  both  Its  natural  and  moral  Fitnefs  for  its  End.  Here  we 
fee  a  cautious,  Indeed,  but  a  regular,  a  ftcddy,  and  determined 
Purpofe.  The  Approaches  are  made  in  form ;  The  Trenches 
opened  ;  tiie  Battery  played;  the  Breach  ftormed  ;  and  at  laft  the 
old  hollow  Fortrcfs  of  Religion  blown  up  Into  Air.  If  ever  this 
fliould  happen,  my  main  Concern  would  be  for  old  Mr.  P.  For 
what  muft  be  that  good  Man's  Sorrows  to  fee  the  /Ibonnnation  of 
D~foLition /landing  in  ike  Holy  Place;  while  he  could  ftart  thus  at 
his  own  Shadow?  For  It  muft  be  his  own  and  not  mine  if  he  faw 
Infidelity  fo  near  a  Book,  whofe  Purpofe  was  to  fhew  the  ufe  of 
Religion  in  general,  to  human  Society;  and  the  fuperior  fitnels  of 
Revealed  Religion  i;i  particular:  The  Truth  of  the  yfW//Z',  from 
the  Adminirtiation  of  an  equal  Providence;  and  the  Truth  of  the 
Chrijiian,  fron;i  the  Completion  of  ycwi/Jj  Prophecies  concern- 
ing it. 

But  now  I  talk  of  Prophecies,  let  me  aik  the  learned  Do£lor  ; 
but,  gently  in  his  Ear,  how  it  comes  to  pafs,  that  when  it  was  the 
Subjeft  of  Prophecies  only  which  occafioned  all  this  Hoftility,  he 
Ihould  leave  my  Confutation  of  his  Dlfcourfe  on  Double  Senfes  un- 
iinfwered;  and  turn  his  Pen  to  the  Four  Subjeds  above-mentioned? 
Did  this  Forbearance  fuit  a  hand  fo  accuflomed  to  Slaughter  ?  or  did 
this  Referve  indicate  a  Mind  fo  open  lo  Conviction?  But  perhaps  in  this 
he  would  emulate  the  great  Scipio;  who,  when  he  had  loft  his  own,  had 
■the  Courage  to  carry  the  War  into  his  Enemy's  Country.  I  muft  pur- 
fue  him  therefore  with  the  fame  Difidvantage  that  the  Cartijaginian 
left  the  rich  Campania  of  Italy^  to  follow  his  Adverfary  through  the 
barren  Sands  of  ^r/V.  For  the  true  Explanation  of  the  Nature  of 
the  Double  Senfe  of  Prophecies  (of  which  I  had  fhewn  he  had  given 
a  Notion  deftru6tlve  of  the  Connexion  between  the  Old  and  New 
Teftament,  through  his  Ignorance  of  the  very  Terms  of  the  Quef- 

tion) 


OCCASIOxMAL    REFLECTIONS.  481 

tlon)  is  of  the  hlgheft  Importance  to  Religion  :  whereas  the  Sub- 
jeds,  for  the  fake  of  which  he  hath  forfaken  this,  are  of  infinitily 
lefs  Importance,  x^nd  thefe  too  he  has  handled  in  fo  unufual  a  man- 
ner, that  all  we  can  colle£l  from  the  firft  of  them,  on  the  Conduct  nf 
the  ancient  Legijlaiors,  is,  that,  in  his  Opinion,  Mofes  was  but  of 
the  fame  Species  with  the  Pagan  Lawgivers*:  As  to  the  Double 
DoBrine  of  the  eld  Philofophers,  he  has  fairly  fliewn  that  he  knew 
no  more  of  it  than  of  the  Double  Senfc  of  Prophecies :  And  vvith 
regard  to  Sir  I.  Newton  s  Chronology^  he  midakes  the  very  Quef- 
tion  ;  imagining  that  I  difputed  the  Truth  of  his  Greek,  inftead  of 
his  Egyptian  Chronology.  So  that  indeed  there  was  nothing  left 
that  I  could,  in  confcience,  feize  upon  but  his  Difcourfe  of  the 
Theocracy  of  the  Jews.  And  this,  I  fuppofe,  was  the  things 
wliich,  in  his  Anfwer  to  my  Meffage,  he  alluded  to,  when  he  faid, 
"  that  he  thought  One  or  Two  of  the  Parts  were  more  immediately 
*'  to  the  Purpofe  to  clear  up." 

I  have  another  Reafon,  too,  to  believe  that  he  may  efteem  this 
the  Forte  of  his   new   Excurfions.     An  extraordinary  Providence  to 

*  That  I  do  Dr.  Sykes  no  wrong,  when  I  fay  he  regards  Mofes  as  of  the  fame  Species, 
and  puts  hmi  upon  the  very  fame  footing  vvith  the  Heathen  Legiflators,  appears  from 
his  own  Words  :  "  This  DoiStrine  [of  a  future  State]  w^s  iinivcrfally  believed.  Now 
♦'  Mofes,  as  a  Legiflator,  was  to  lay  down  Laws  to  the  Jews,  and  he  was  to  incorporate 
•'  their  National  Religion  into  their  Civil  Law.  This  was  done,  not  by  iticu.catlng  tubal 
*'  ivas  unimerfally  received  and  believed  by  them  ;  but  by  inculcating  fuch  Points  as  were  to 
*•  make  the  National  Religion  of  the  Jews.  An  in  this  he  did  exactly  what  other  Legif- 
"  lators  did  :  what  was  useful  to  the  State,  he  admitted  into  the  Body  of  his  Laws  ; 
'*  and  so  far  as  it  was  ufeful  to  the  State,  but  further  than  that  neither  he  nox 
"  Zaleucus  concerned  themselves,"  p.  59,  60.  In  which  fliort  Period  are  con- 
tained thefe  Four  Propofnions— — '7hat  it  is  not  the  PraBice  of  Legiflators  to  inculcate  what 
is  uni'oer tally  believed — That  a  futxTre  State  does  not  make  One  Point  of  National  Religion — 
[And  for  a  good  Reafon.  Recaufej— JZ;^/  a  future  Slate  is  not  vfeful  to  Society ~7haty 
further  than  the  good  of  the  State,  Mofes  concerned  himfcf  no  mare  than  Zaleucus,  or  any 

ether  Heathen  Legiflator. How   much  now  has  this  Author  to  thank  me  for  ;  when, 

inftead  of  expofing  the  other  Three  Parts  of  his  Book.,  which  abound  with  thefe  Beau- 
ties in  every  Page,  I  confined  niyfelf  to  this,  where  the  natural  Obfcurity  of  the  Subjeft 
hides  both  his  Blunders  and  his  BUiflies  ? 

Vol.  VI.  Q  q  q  P^^' 


48»  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

Particulars,  though  exprefsly  promifed  by,  and,  as  I  have  fliewn,  a 
nccefliuy  Confcquence  of,  the  Law  o^ Mofes  ;  yet,  partly  from  the 
Nature  of  tlie  thing,  and  partly  from  miftaken  Pafiages  of  mifun- 
derftood  Hooks  of  Scripture,  is  not  entirely  free  from  Objeftions. 
Here  then  he  thought  he  could  do  fomething;  though  it  were  but 
retailing  the  Objeaions  of  others.  And  truly,  as  ill  as  he  has  ma- 
naged thefe  Advantages,  he  was  not  miftaken  in  his  Ciioice.  Far 
the  reft — it  is  all  over  fuch  Argument  !  and  fuch  Criticifm  I  as 
one  might  well  conceive  (hould  be  referved  to  clofe  the  Scene 
of  Letters  in  an  Age  like  this ;  when  every  Science  was  retiring 
from  its  Proftfors,  to  Dictionary-makers  and  Booksellers. 

Remark  L 

He  begins  his  Examimtion  of  the  Nature  of  the  Jewip  Theocracy 
in  this  manner  : — "  This  Form  of  Government  of  the  j^^U',.  being 
"  properly  called  a  Theocracy,  there  are  two  Points  which  Mr. 
"  Warburton  has  largely  confidered.  The  firft  is,  in  relation  to  the 
"  Origin,  Continuation,  and  Duration  of  this  Theocracy.  The 
"  other  is  in  relation  to  the  Exercife  of  an  extraordinary  Providence 
"  over  particular  Perfons,  as  well  as  over  the  State  in  general.  Li 
"  relation  to  the  former  of  thefe  Points  he  tells  us,  That  moji 
•*  Writers  fuppofe  it  to  have  ended  with  the  Judges^  but  fear ce  any 
*'  bring  it  lower  than  the  Captivity  :  On  the  contrary,  I  hold  that  in 
'■'■  firiSl  Truth  ajid  Propriety  it  ended  not  till  the  coming  o/'Chrlft,  p. 
"  404*.  Here  it  is  that  he  attacks  "Dt.  Spencer  s  Differtation  on  the 
"  Jewijl)  Theocracy,  a  Treatife  by  no  means  in  the  number  of  thofe 
"  on  nvhich  Spencer  raifed  his  Reputation  :  He  goes  on  a  wrong  Hy- 
^''  pothefis;  he  ufes  weak  Arguments;  and  he  is  confufed  and  inconff- 
«'  tent  in  his  Affert ions,  p,  414  -f.  Are  we  not  now,  from  hence,  to 
"  imagine,  that  Dr.  Spencer  was  one  of  thofe  Writers  that  fuppofed 
*'  ths  Theocracy  to  have  ended  with  the  Judges,  or,  at  furtheft, 
*'  with  the  Captivity  ?     And  yet  Mr.  Warburton  Is  forced  to  own 

*  Ed.  4to.  Vol.  in.  p.  69.  f  Ibid.  p.  77. 

"  that 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  4^3 

*^  i\ut  Spencer  " /uppa/es"  [I  fay  he  pofitlvcly  ^ir/j]  ^^  that  fome 
*'  obfcure  Footfeps  of  it  remained  to  the  Time  of  Chiift.  Yes,  and 
*'  longer  too,  for  his  Words  are,  ad  extrema  ufque  politift  ftia  tcm- 
*■''  pora,  i.  e.  qwte  to  the  latter  Times  of  their  Policy,  even  to  the  lajl 
**  Times  of  expirhig  Judaifm  *."  I  had  obferved,  that  mojl  ff^ritcrs 
fuppofe  the  Theocracy  to  have  ended  with  the  fudges ;  I'circe  afiy 
bring  it  loiver  than  the  Captivity  ;  /  myfef  fitppofe  it  continued  to  the 
Time  of  Chrifl:  :  that  Dr.  Spencer  wrote  a  weak  and  inconffient 
Treatife  on  this  SuhjeSi.  Well,  and  what  fays  our  Anfwerer  to 
this  ?  "  Are  we  not  now  (fays  h  J  from  hence  to  imagine  tliat 
"  Dr.  Spencer  was  one  of  thofe  Writers  that  fuppofed  the  Theo- 
*'  cracy  to  have  ended  with  the  Judges  ?"  What  Demands  of  Ima- 
gination his  Trade  may  have  upon  him  is  hard  to  fay.  But,  from 
my  Words,  a  Reafoner  would  conclude  nothing  but  that  1  meaht  to 
prove  what  I  faid  ;  namely,  that  Dr.  Spencer'' s  Book  of  the  Theo- 
cracy was  ijoeak  and  incoififlent.  Few  Anfwerers  have  ftiick  at  a 
Mifreprefentation  ;  but  then  it  was  to  carry  on  their  Bufinefs,  the 
Manufaftory  of  falfe  Argument.  Our  Examiner,  on  the  contrary, 
feems  to  do  it  only  to  keep  his  hand  in  ufe ;  for  Argument  he  could 
make  none,  though  he  had  the  laying  together  of  his  own  Pre- 
miffes.  In  a  word,  the  whole  is  a  ftudied  iVIifrcprefentation  of  all 
I  faid  on  this  Subje£V.  The  Method  of  which  was  as  follows  : 
Firjl  to  fhew  [from  p.  405  to  407  +],  that  the  Theocracy  conti- 
nued to  the  Time  of  Chrifl.  Secondly,  to  confute  he  Clercs  Argu- 
ments [from  p.  407  to  414  :j:]  for  its  ceafing  with  the  Judges.  And 
this  makes  up  the  body  of  the  Difcourfe  concerning  the  Diration 
of  the  Theocracy.  Having  done  this,  I  proceeded  in  thefe  Words — 
Thus  the  Dfpute  ended  [namely  between  Le  Clerc  and  P.  Simon]  ; 
and  for  further  Satisfaction  Le  Clerc  refers  us  to  a  Book  r^  Spencer's, 
written  profejfedly  upon  this  very  Subje5l.  It  is  his  Tract  De  Theo^ 
cratia  Judaica.     JFhat  is  to  be  found  there,   b fides  tie  Jrguma.ts 

*  An  Examination  of  Mr.  Warburtoii's  Account,  &:c.  i68— — 170. 
f  Ed.  4to.  Vol,  III.  p.  69— 71.  j  Ibid.  p.  71— ;?• 

Q  q  q  2  Le 


484  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

Le  Clcrc  borrowed  from  it,  and  iv/jich  htxve  been  covfidered  already  ^ 
I jLuillnoiv,  vjilbfomc  Reluflancy,  inform  the  Reader*.  Then  I  go 
01)  to  give  a  Charader  of  this  Trait,  as  quoted  by  the  Examiner. 
And  to  juftify  this  Charader,  1  condder  what  is  there  faid  that 
may  feem  to  contradidl  what  I  had  before  obferved  concerning  tlie 
Duration  of  the  Theocracy.  Now  the  Reader  fees  that  this  is  only 
an  Accefibry  to  the  body  of  the  Difcourfe,  given,  partly,  to  ener- 
vate the  Authority  which  he  Clerc  built  upon  it ;  and  partly,  to 
flrengthen  and  confirm  what  had  been  advanced  by  myfelf.  Yet 
our  fimple-minded  Doftor,  after  having  concealed  all  this,  fays 
(quoting  p.  404  +•)  "  Here  it  is  that  he  attacks  Dr.  Spencer  s  Dif- 
"  fertation  ;"  whenas  the  very  mention  of  Dr.  Spencer  does  not 
commence  till  Fourteen  Pages  afterwards  :  And,  as  if  that  were 
not  enough,  goes  on  in  this  manner  : — "  Are  we  not  now  from 
*♦  hence  to  imagine  that  Dr.  Spencer  was  one  of  thofe  Writers  that 
**  fuppofed  the  Theocracy  to  have  ended  with  the  Judges  ?  (Sc. — 
*'  And  yet  Mr.  IV.  is  forced  to  own  that  Spencer  fuppofes,"  &c. 
I  fhould  not  have  been  fo  long  in  hiying  open  fo  immaterial  a  Cheat, 
but  as  it  was  convenient  the  Reader  fhonid,  on  his  firft  Acquain- 
tance with  our  Do6tor,  be  let  a  little  into  his  Manners. 

II. 

But  he  will  not  only  (hew,  that  my  arraigning  Spencer  was  ab- 
furd ;  but  that  the  Charge  againft  him  is  unjuft.  "  His  firfl:  Charge 
*'  againft  him  is,  that  he  thought  the  Theocracy  was  eftablifhed 
«'  by  degrees,  and  abrogated  by  degrees.  A  Conceit  highly  abfiird 
"  (lays  Mr.  Warburton)  as  God  was  hegiflator.  But  wherein  lies 
*'  the  Abfurdity  of  this  gradual  Progrefs  and  gradual  Declenfion, 
"  even  in  Cafes  where  God  was  Legiflator  ?  I  fuppofe  he  will  fay 
«'  that  the  Theocracy  began  at  the  inftant  of  the  Horeb  Covenant; 
"  and  not  when  the  Children  of  Ifrael  were  delivered  from  Egypt ^ 

*  DinneLegat.  Vo!.  II.  p.  414.     [Vol.111,   p.  77.  Ed.  410.] 
•]   Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  6g. 

«  and 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.       4S5 

*•  and  were  fiift  under  the  immediate  I'rotc£lioii  of  God.  But 
"  Spencer  intended  by  his  word  Theocracy,  all  the  time  that 
"  the  Jeii's  were  under  the  direct  Power  and  immediate  Domi- 
"  nion  of  God;  which  certainly  began  at  the  Deliverance  of  the 
"  Jcti's  from  Egypt,  and  was  compleated  in  the  highcft  and  fullcfl: 
*'  Senfe  at  the  Horeb  Covenant,  w'hen  God  was  conflitutcd  their 
*'  King  *."  I  called  Spencer  s  Notion  of  the  gradual  Prcgrefs  and 
gradual  Dech'-nf.on  of  a  Theocracy,  an  Absurdity.  He  fays,  no: 
nnd  how  does  he  prove  it  is  not  ?  By  fhewing,  that,  by  the  Word 
Theocracy,  Spencer  meant  a  Thing  which  gradually  arofe  and  gra- 
dually  declined.  But  is  not  this  the  very  Abjurdiiy  I  complain  of?  I 
call  an  Opinion  abfurd  :  and  He,  to  free  it  from  this  Cenfure,  tells 
us — what  that  Opinion  is.  But  as  I  do  not  fuppofe  he  will  be  ever 
able  to  anfwer  my  Queflion,  I  will  try  if  I  can  anfwer  his — 
*'  Wherein  lies  the  Abiiirdity  of  this  gradual  Progrefs  and  gradual 
'^'  Declenfion  even  in  the  Cafes  where  God  was  Legiflator?"  The  Ab- 
furdity,  learned  Sir,  lies  here  :  When  God  is  pleafed  to  affumc  the 
Chara6ter  of  Civil  Magiftrate,  he  muft,  like  all  other  MngiArates,  enter 
on  his  Office  at  once ;  and  (as  common  Scnfe  requires)  leave  it  at 
once.  Now  the  Government,  under  fuch  a  INIagiflrate,  is,  what 
we  properly  call  a  Theocracy:  therefore  to  talk  of  the  gradual 
Progrefs  and  gradual  Declenfion  of  this  Mode  of  Civil  Relation,  is 
the  fame  Ablurdity  as  to  talk  of  the  gradual  Progrefs  and  gradual 
Declenfion  of  Paternity  or  any  other  Mode  of  Natural  Relation. 
Whether  this  was  a  Blunder  or  a  Sophifm,  is  of  no  Confequence  ; 
if  the  Detection  of  it  does  but  fhew  the  Reader  what  good  Reafon 
I  had  to  fuppofe,  that  the  Theocracy  began  at  the  Infant  of  the 
Horeb  Covenant ;  and  how  much  Spencer  was  miftaken  in  the  ufe 
of  the  Term,  if  he  intended  by  it,  all  the  Time  that  the  Jews 
were  under  the  direct  Pozvcr  and  immediate  Dominion  of  God.  For,. 
'ix\  that  Cafe,  he  fhould  have  ufed  the  Word  LegifaturCy  nnd  not 

*  Exam,  of  Mr,  W's  Account,  3u;.  p.  j^o,  171. 

Theocracy^ 


486  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

Theocracy. — But  I  had  beft  fl-op  here,  left  tliis  new  Di{lni£tlon  fliould 
ftill  further  embarras  this  able  Advocate  of  Dr.  'Spencer. 

III. 

However,  he  goes  on  to  fiipport  his  Reafoning  in  this  manner  : — 
**  So  when  Dr.  Spencer  fpeaks  of  its  declining  gradually — of  the 
■*'  Government  nf  God  being  Itjfened — of  its  making  a  nearer  Approach 
*'  to  its  ceafng,  I  think,  if  there  be  any  Abfiirdity  or  Inconfijhncy 
**  in  this  manner  of  fpeaking,  it  may  bejuftified  by  Mr.  IVarburtons 
*'  ovvn  Authority.  He  himfelf  tells  us,  that  indeed  in  the  Period 
■*'  immediately  preceding  their  [the  Jews]  Captivity ,  on  the  gradtial 
'*  withdrawing  the  extraordinary  Providence  from  them — they  began 
"  to  entertain  Doubts  concerning  God's  further  peculiar  regard  to  them 
'*  as  his  chofen  People,  p.  400  *.  So  that  he  here  exprefsly  owns  a 
*'  GRADUAL  WITHDRAWING  of  the  extraordinary  Providence  from 
*'  the  j^'fWJ.  And  where  is  the  Abfurdity  of  Dr.  Spencer''s  gradual 
*'  Declenfion  or  Imminution  of  the  Theocracy,  which  Mr.  Warbur- 
"  tons  gradual  withdrawing  of  the  extraordinary  Providence  is  not 
*'  liable  unto  ?  or  was  not  the  gradual  withdrawing  of  the  extra- 
*'  ordinary  Providence  a  proper  Imminution  of  the  Theocracy  -}-  r" 
He  is  fo  fond  of  this  Argument  that  he  repeats  it  again  at  p.  218. 
*'  Dr.  Spencer  and  Mr.  Warburton  feem  to  exprefs  themielves 
*'  fo  exadly  alike  about  the  Imminution  of  the  Theocracy,  that 
•*  one  would  wonder  how  it  fhould  happen  that  Dr.  Spencer's  No- 
*'  tion  is  a  Conceit  highly  abfurd,  and  Mr.  Warburton'' s  fiiould  be  fo 
*'  confifleut,  and  eafy,  and  natural."  To  all  this  I  anfwer,  that  our 
Advocate  has  here  fairly  convidled  himfelf  of  a  degree  of  Ignorance 
that  I  never  would  have  ventured  to  fufpeft  of  him,  which  is,  the 
uot  knowing  the  Difference  between  the  Form  of  Government 
and  tiie  Administration  of  it.  Now  Dr.  Spencer  talked  of  a 
gradual  Decline  of  the  Form  of  Government ;  which  I  thought  ab- 
furd.   I,  of  the  gradual  Decline  of  the  Adminiflration  of  it ;  which, 

*  Ed.  4to.  Vol.  III.  p.  51,  52. 

t  Exam,  of  Mr.  IV'i  Account,  l^c.  p.  171,   172. 

whether 


OCCASIONAL    REFIECTIONS.  4S7 

whether  It  be  equally  abfurd.  mny  be  fceii  by  a  pflralicl  Inftance. — 
For  though,  not  long  fince,  I  fpoke  of  Parallels,  Similitudes,  and 
Refemblances,  as  weak  Inftrumeiits  for  the  Difcovery  of  Truth  ; 
yet  they  are  often  of  more  ufe  than  better  things  for  the  Dete<5lion 
of  Falfliood.  If  I  fliould  fay  then,  that  there  was,  during  the 
Reigns  of  James  the  Firft  and  Charles  the  Second,  a  gradual  with- 
drawing the  ProteSiion  of  the  People,  and  the  equal  A  dm  in  iji  rati  on 
of  Juftice  ;  1  fhould  fpeak,  I  prefume,  both  Senfe  and  Truth  :  Yet 
if  O'dmixo7i  himfelf  fliould  affirm  that  there  was,  during  this  Pe- 
riod, a  gradual  withdrawing  of  \.\\q  Monarchy  \  I  fliould  go  near  to 
fay,  he  talked  as  much  like  a  Fool  in  this,  as  he  talks  like  a  Knave 
in  mod:  other  Parts  of  his  Hiftory. 

IV. 

Well,  but  our  Advocate  will  go  further  ;  and  fhew,  that  though 
Dr.  Spencer  be  confident,  yet  1  am  not. — "  I  will  obferve  further 
(fays  he)  "  Dr.  Spencer  maintains  that  fome  obfcure  Footjleps  of  the 
"  Theocracy  remained  even  to  the  Time  ofC\\x\{[.  And  Mr.  PVarbtir- 
"  ton  holds  it  ended  not  till  the  coming  fl/"Chrifl:,  p.  404.  417*.  Dr» 
"  Spencer  is  confiftent ;  but  it  is  far  from  being  clear  that  Mr.  War- 
*'  burton  is  fo.  For  He  hath  told  us,  that  in  the  Period  immedi- 
"  ately  preceding  the  Captivity,  there  was  a  gradual  withdrawing 
"  of  the  extraordinary  Providence,  p.  400  +•  In  another  Place  he 
"  tells  us,  that  after  their  perfeSi  Settlement  on  their  return  from  Cap- 
*«  tivity  (when  we  know,  f  am  the  Courfe  and  Progrefs  of  God's  Oc- 
"  conomy,  the  extraordinary  Providence  would  ceafe)  we  hear  no  more 
"  of  it  amongjl  them,  nor  did  they  make  the  haft  Pretence  to  it,  though 
"  they  now  adhered  much  morefriSlly  to  their  Religion,  than  they  had 
"  ever  done  before.  They  pretended  not — to  either  Prophets,  Oracles ,. 
"  or  extraordinary  Dijpen fat  ions,  p.  440  \.  Here  Mr.  Warburton  men- 
"  tions  the  Misfortune  at  Bethfura,  can  fed  by  the  Sabbatical  Tear  ;  a 
^'  Misfortune  of  which  we  have  no  hijtance  before  the  Captivity,  and 
"  therefore  a  plain  Proof,  that  the  extraordinary  Providence  was  in^ 

*  Ed.  4to.  Vol.  III.  Book  V.   §  2.  f  Ibid,  p,  53.         %  IbiJ.  p.  iiS. 

"  deedi. 


488  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

«'  dcidiv'iihdrawn,  p.  4+0  *.  Again  ;  The  extraordinary  Providence 
"  kept  gradually  decaying,  till  on  their  full  Settlement  after  their  Re- 
♦'  turn  it  entirely  ceafed,  p.  445  +.  From  ^hefe  aflertioas  of  Mr.  IFar- 
*^  burton  I  argue,  that  if  the  extb  ^ordinary  Providence  en- 
«'  tirely  ceafed  on  the  full  Settlen:ieiit  of  the  Jeivs  after  their  Return, 
«'  it  ceafed  fomc  Centuries  at  kail:  before  the  Days  of  Chrijl;  and 
"  CONSEQUENTLY  the  THEOCRACY  muft  have  ceafed  fome  Centu- 
•"  ries  before  the  Days  of  Cbrijl.  How  then  is  Mr.  Warburton  more 
*'  confident  about  the  Duration  of  the  Theocracy  than  others  are, 
*'  fince  he  pleads  for  its  Continuance  till  ChrifTs  Time,  and  yet 
**  maintains  that  it  entirely  ceafed  fo  long  before  his  7  ime  %  V 

The  Argument,  we  fee,  gathers  as  it  rolls.  In  the  beginning. 
The  ceafmg  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  only  implied,  in  conje- 
^uence  the  ceafmg  of  the  Theocracy.  But,  before  we  get  to  the  end 
of  the  Sentence,  an  extraordinary  Providence  and  a  Theocracy  arc 
one  and  the  fame  thing.  Mr.  JVarburton  pleads  for  its  [a  Theo- 
*'  cracy's]  Continuance  till  ChrijVs  Time,  and  yet  maintain^  that 
*'  IT  entirely  ceafed  fo  long  before  his  Time."  Thus  again  to  the 
fame  purpofe  at  p.  l  78.  "  Or  by  what  Rule  does  he  form  a  Judg- 
*'  ment  that  what  was  gradually  decaying  to  the  Captivity,  was 
*'  entirely  to  ceafe  after  their  Return  and  full  Settlement  ;  and  yet 
*'  WAS  to  continue  till  ChrijVs  Time  ?" — Nay,  if  he  begins  to  talk 
of  Rules,  let  me  afk  him  by  what  Rule  he  found  out,  "  that  a  Mo- 
**  narchy  and  an  exadl  Adminijiration  offuflice  are  one  and  the  fame 
*•  thing  r"  I  fuppofe  by  the  Genus  generalljfimum  of  the  Schools; 
and  might  be  borrowed,  for  aught  I  know,  of  a  certain  Predecef- 
for  of  his  in  the  Church  of  Sarum,  who,  when  the  Bifliop  (to 
whom  he  was  conftruing  in  the  Latin  Teftament)  afked  him  what 
the  Word  yf/-^f«/aw  was  governed  of,  replied,  "  Of  God  Almighty, 
who  governs  all  things."  But  Times  are  changed,  and  now  Argen- 
turn  governs  in  its  turn.     The  truth  is,  our  Examiner  was  thus 

*   Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  118.  t  Ibid.  vol.  III.  p.  122. 

%  Exam,  of  Mr.  ti^s  Account,  i^c  p.  173,  174., 

grievoufly 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  489 

grlevoufly  mifled  by  the  Ambiguity  of  the  Eng/i/?j  Word  the  Go- 
vernment ;  which  fignifies  either  the  Mode  of  Civil  PoHcy,  or 
the  Administration  of  it.  But  was  this  to  be  expeded  in  a  Man 
who  had  been  all  his  Life-long  writing  about  Govenmient  ? 

Yet  thus  he  runs  along,  pufhing  his  own  Blunder  before  him, 
from  Page  to  Page.  And  ftill,  as  if  unwilling  to  leave  it,  is  at  laft 
hardly  content  to  recapitulate  his  Argument  in  the  following  man- 
ner. *'  What  now  is  the  difference  between  thefe  two  great 
**  Men  ?  Dr.  Spencer  has  dated  the  Abatement  of  tlie  Theocracy 
"  from  the  End  of  the  Time  of  the  Judges  :  Mr.  JVarburton  allows 
*'  that  Under  the  Judges  it  was  perfeSlly  equal.  Dr.  Spencer  (iiys 
"  that  the  Theocracy  fuffered  fome  Imminution  under  Z)^rv"t('  and 
*'  Solomon  :  Mr.  Warhurion  fays,  when  the  People  demanded  a  King — 
"  there  was  a  great  Abatement  in  the  Vigour  of  this  extraordinary 
**  Providence.  At  laft  Mr.  Warburton  owns  a  total  cefThtion  upon 
"  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  Captivity;  and  to  the  time  of  the 
•'  Captivity,  a  gradual  Decay.  Dr.  Spencer  fays,  there  was  a  gra- 
"  duallmminution  of  the  Theocracy  ;  but  as  for  a  total  Ceflation 
*'  before  ChriJTs  Time,  he  was  not  inconsistent  enough  to  main- 
"  tain  that  *."  What  mull:  we  do  with  our  Dodlor  under  this 
ftrange  Idlofyncrafy  ?  The  general  Cafe  of  fuch  kind  of  Writers, 
when  they  flumble,  is  to  run  inftinftively,  as  it  were,  from  their 
own  Blunders.  But  our  Doctor  delights  to  dwell  upon  his,  adedts 
to  enjoy  them,  though  but  for  a  Moment,  returns  again  and  again 
to  them,  as  if  enamoured  of  his  own  Image,  In  them. 

V. 

But  now  for  a  Mafter-flroke;  worthy  an  Anfwcrcr  by  ProfcJJlon. 
**  It  [the  extraordinary  Providence]  had  ceafed  (fays  he)  fome  hun- 
«  dred  of  Years  before  Chriji  came  ;  as  Mr.  JVarburton  over  and 
«'  over  confefles.  The  Difficulty  then  is  to  (hew  that  the  Theocracy 
"  continued,  or,  ended  not  till  the  coming  o/'Chrill;  p.  404  +.'* 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  JVs  Account,  i^c.  p.  177. 
t  Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  69. 

Vol.  VL  R  r  r  "  Perhaps 


490  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

*«  Perhaps  Mr.  IVarbttrton  will  diftingulfh  between  the  ceafingof 
*•  the  Theocracy,  and  the  ceafiiig  of  the  Extraordinary  Providence: 
*'  He  m?.y  fay  that  the  T/jcocracy  continued  till  the  coming  ofChriJl  ; 
«*  the  Extraordinary  Frovidence  entirely  ceafed  at  the  full  Settlement 
«♦  after  the  return  of  the  J^wf  from  their  Captivity.  Let  us  then 
«'  grant  that  the  Tlheocracy  revived  after  the  return  from  the  Captivi- 
"  iy,  as  he  tells  us,  p.  416  *•  And  that  that  Difpenfation  of  Frovi- 
»'  dencefoon  ceafed  after  the  Re-efablifoment  ;  ibid.  We  are  ftill  as 
«'  much  in  the  Dark  as  ever ;  nor  will  this  DIftindion  help  the  Mat- 
*«  ter,  or  free  Mr.  Warbiirton  from  great  Selfcontradidion.  For 
**  he  tells  us,  one  necessary  Confeqtience  [of  a  Th-eocracy]  was  an 
*'  ExTRAORDiisrARY  PROVIDENCE.  For  the  Aflairs  of  a  People 
*'  under  a  Theocracy  being  adminiftered  by  GOD  as  King  ;  and  hi? 
*^  peculiar  and  immediate  Adminijlration  in  human  Affairs  being  what 
*'  ijue  call  an  Extraordinary  Providence,  it  follows  that  an  Extraor- 
"  dinary  Providence  mufi  needs  be  exercifed  over  fuch  a  People.  My 
*«  Meaning  is,  that  if  the  Jews  were  really  under  a  Theocracy,  they 
*'  were  really  under  an  Extraordinary  Providence. — In  a  IFord,  they 
«'  muji  be  either  both  true  or  bothfalfe,  but  fill  infeparable  ;  ^.  419  f  • 
"  If  this  be  the  Cafe,  then  it  is  plain  that  a  Theocracy  cannot  be 
"  without  an  Extraorai7iary  Providence.  But  then  Mr.  Wdirburton 
"  has  fhewn,  and  at  large  infifts  upon  it,  that  the  Extraordinary 
"  Providence  eniirely  ceased  feveral  hundred  Years  ((^f/orf  C/^r/y^'j- 
"  coming  :  Nay  he  fays,  that  he  knows  from  the  Courfe  and  Pro- 
"  grefs  of  God's  Oeconomy,  that  the  Extraordinary  Providence 
•'  WOULD  ceafe  at  the  full  Sctilement  of  the  Jews  after  their  return 
*^from  the  Captivity;  p.  440  |.  He  has  likewife  proved  by  feveral 
"  Arguments,  that  the  Theocracy  continued  even  to  the  conung  of 
"  Chrift  ;  />.  417,  4i8§.  By  this  means  we  are  left  in  inextri-, 
"cable  Difficultis:  For  firfl:  we  have  a  Theocracy  fubfifting 
"  many    hundred  Years     without     an     extraordinary    Providence^ 

*  Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  -g.  f  Ibid.  p.  98. 

}  Ibid.  p.  1 1 8.  §  Ibid.  p.  80. 

«  viz. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  4f,i 

"  viz.  from  the  Settlement  of  the  Jczvs,  after  their  return, 
"to  the  time  of  Chrlji :  And  confequently,  Secondly,  n  Tueo- 
<'  crcicy  wherein  an  Extraordinary  Provide72ce  needs  not  be  cx- 
*«  ercifed.  Thirdly  we  have  a  Theocracy  without  a  Nelessary 
"  Consequence  of  a  I'heocracy,  /.  e.  without  an  extraordinary 
*«  Providence.  /  nd  whereas  he  allerts  that  tbc  Theocracy  and  ex- 
"  traordinary  Providence  muft  he  either  Both  true  or  Both  Jaljc^  but 
'■'■pll  infeparablc.  He  himftlf  h.as  fhewn  them  to  he  frparable,  by 
"  fhewing  that  the  one  did  in  fa:l:  fubiift  without,  the  other  for  fo 
*'  many  hundred  Years  as  were  between  the  Settlement  of  ihttjews 
"  after  their  return  from  Captivity  and  the  coming  of  C/v"//?  *." 

The  firfl:  thing  I  fhall  oblerve  i?,  that  the  Theocracy  and  the  Ex- 
traordinary ProvidiJjce  are  now  become  two  again,  after  they  liad 
been  fo  long  one.  But  who  can  help  it  !  The  Author  of  Tlk-  Di- 
vitie  Legation  would  needs  have  them,  two.  However  he  will  Hill 
fliew  they  are  infeparable ;  and  that,  from  the  Author's  own  Con- 
fcflion. — I  have  here  quoted  him  Word  for  Word,  without  the 
omiffion  of  a  Syllable;  that  when  we  fee  what  he  was  refolved  not 
to  fee,  we  may  the  better  judge  of  what  he  meant,  by  a  Mind  open 
to  Conviction:  no  more,  I  dare  fay,  than  a  Mon  who  had  been  ojlcn 
convicted ;  though  never  perhaps  before  in  fo  flagrant  an  Inftance. 
—The  Truth  is,  I  had  exprefsly  and  particularly  confidered  and 
confuted  this  very  Objedlion,  in  the  420th  t  Page  of  the  fecond  Vo- 
lume of  The  Divine  legation,  where  (on  the  Words. They   [the 

Theocracy  and  extraordinary  Providence]  muji  be  either  both  true  or 
both  falfe,  but  Jlill  infeparable^  Words  which  our  Ekaminer  has 
twice  quoted)  I  have  this  Note  at  the  bottom  of  the  Page — The 
Thing  here  ajj'erted  has  been  mifunderjlood,  as  contradiSiing  ivhat  I  after- 
•wards  ohferve  concerning  the  gradual  Decay  and  total  Extindlion  of  the 
extraordinary  Providence,  while  /Z;^  Theocracy jy^/  exifcd.  But  when 
I  fay  an  extraordinary  Providence  was  one  neceflary  Confequence  of 
a  Theocracy,  Imifi  needs  mean  that  it  was  fo  in  its  original  Confiitu- 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  Ws  Account,  p.  180 — 182. 
t  Ed.  4to.  vol.  in.  p.  98. 

R  r  r  2  //(?«, 


492  REMARKS   ON    SEVERAL 

//<?»,  and  in  the  eftiiblijljed  Nature  of  Things :  Not  that  in  this ^  which 
•was  matter  of  CompaB,  the  contravening  J^s  of  one  Party  might  not 
make  a  Separation.  For  as  this  extraordinary  Providence  was,  btfideSy 
a  Reward  for  Obedience  to  the  Theocracy,  it  became  fubjeSt  to  a  For- 
feiture by  Dijobedience  and  Rebellion,  though  SubjeSlion  to  the  Govern- 
ment fill  continued.  To  illufrate  this  by  a  domefic  Inftance :  A  Voice 
in  the  fupy erne  Council  of  the  Kingdom  is  the  neceffary  Confequence  of  an 
Englifli  Barony ;  yet  they  may  be  fcparated  by  a  judicial  Sentence  ;  and 
equally  have  been  fo,  as  in  the  Cafe  of  the  famous  Lord  Bacon,  who 
•was  deprived  rf  his  Seat  in  the  Houfe  of  Lords,  and  yet  held  hts  Barony. 
This  was  the  fpec'fc  Punifhment  of  the  rebellious  Ifraelites.  They 
were  deprived  of  the  extraordinary  Providence;  and  yet  held  fiibjeSl 
to  the  Tlicocracy,  as  appears  from  the  Sentence  pronounced  upon  them 
bytheMcuth  of  the  Prophet  Ezekiel  :  "  Te  pollute  your f elves  with  your 
♦♦  Idols  even  unto  this  Day:  and f mil  I  be  enquired  of  by  you,  OHoufe 
•*  o/'lfrael  ?  Jls  I  live,  faith  the  Lord  God,  I  will  not  be  enquired 
**  of  by  you.  And  that  which  cometh  into  your  Mind  fhall  not 
"  be  at  all,  that  ye  fay,  we  will  be  as  the  Heathen,  as  the  Fami- 
*' lies  of  the  Countries  to  ferve  Wood  and  Stone.  Jls  I  live,  faith 
*'  the  Lord,  with  a  mighty  Hand,  with  a  ftretched-out  Arm,  and 
*'  with  Fury  poured  out,  will  I  rule  over  you.  And  I  will  bring 
*'  you  out  from  the  People,  and  will  gather  you  out  of  the  Coun- 
*'  tries  wherein  ye  are  fcattered,  with  a  mighty  Hand,  and  with  a 
*■'■  f  retched- out  Arm,  and  with  Fury  poured  out.  And  I  will  bring, 
"  you  into  the  Wildernefs  of  the  People,  and  there  will  I  plead  with- 
*'^  you  Face  to  F^ce.  Like  as  I  pleaded  with  your  Fathers  in  the 
"  Wildernefs  of  the  Land  of  Egypt,  fo  •will  I  plead  with  you,  faith 
•'  the  Lord.  And  I  will  caufe  you  to  pafs  under  the  Rod.  And  I 
•'  will  bring  you  Into  the  Bond  of  the  Covenant."  Chap.  xx. 
ver.  31 — 37.  It  is  here,  we  fee,  denounced  that  the  extraordinary 
Providence  fjould  be  withdrawn  ;  or,  in  Scripture  Phrafe,  that  God 
would  not  be  enquired  of  by  them;  that  they  pculd  remain  in  the 
Condition  of  their  Fathers  in  the  Wildernefs,  when  the  extraordinary 

Providence^ 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  493 

Providence^  for  ihclr fignalD'tfobedicnce^  ivas  for  fome  time  fufpendcih 
But  for  all  that,  though  they  f  rove  to  dijpcrfc  them/elves  amongfl  the 
People  round  about,  and  projected  in  their  Minds  to  be  as  tlie  Hea- 
then, and  the  Families  of  the  Countries  to  fcrve  Wood  and  Stone, 
yet  they  JJjould  fill  be  held  under  the  Government  (9/' rt  Theocracy  : 
ivhich,  when  adminifred  without  its  naturally  attendant  Blefing  of  an 
extraordinary  Providence,  was,  and  was  jufly  called,  the  Rod  and 
Bond  of  the  Covenant  *.  He  is  now  fairly  and  openly  con- 
viSled,  What  fliall  be  his  Punifhment  ?  That, .  which  hath  proved, 
hitherto,  his  Reader's  ;  To  write  on. 

VL 

He  proceeds,  "  Mr.  Warburton^s  fecond  Obje£lion  againf}  Dr. 
*'  Spencer  is — in  his  Arguments  for  the  Abolition  of  the  Theocracy, 
"  injlead  of  attempting  to  prove  it  on  the  great  Principles  of  Ovil 
*  Policy,  the  only  wav  of  determining  the  ^lejlion  with  Certainty^  he 
"  infjls  much  on  the  Dfufe  of  Urim  and  Thummim,  &c.  He  brings 
"  the  Dfpotic  Power  of  the  Kings,  as  another  Argument,  which  I 
"  think  proves  the  very  contrary.  For  were  thefe  Kings  the  l^iceroys 
«'  of  God,  whofe  Power  was  Dfpotic,  theirs  muf  neceffnri/y  be  the 
*'  fame  ;  not  fo,  if  Monarchs  in  their  own  right ;  ;>.  415  f. — In  his  Ar^ 
*' ^«/«£'«^iyor/i6^  Abolition  of  the  Theocracy. — Has  Dr.  Spencer  any 
"  Arguments  for  the  Abolition  of  the  Theocracy  before  the  Days 
««  of  Chriftf  He  has  no  fuch  Arguments;  nor,  I  dare  fay,  never 
•*  thought  of  fueh  a  Topic ;  becaufe  he  tells  us  it  continued  to  the 
"  laft  Times  of  their  Policy*  He  has  indeed  a  Sedion  about  the 
*'  Duration  of  the  Theocracy,  in  which  he  lays  down  four  Thefes^ 
*'  about  the  gradual  declining  of  the  Theocracy :  And  in  one  of 
*'  them  he  fliews  it  was  not  at  an  End  in  Saul  and  David^s  Days, 
^  becaufe  in  their  Time  the  divine  Oracle  was  confulted ;  that  in 
"  Soiomous  Time,  there  was  a  difufe  of  Urim  and  Thummim,  which 

*  Divine  Legal.  Vol.II.  Part  II.  p.  420,  421.  Note  °.  [Vol,  III,  p. 98 — ioo,  etl.+to..] 
t  Ed.  4to.  vol.Ui.  p.  78. 

^  was. 


^9+  REMARKS  ON  SEVERAL 
*'  was  n  moft  eminent  Pledge  and  Indication  of  the  divine  Govern- 
*»  ment  :  From  this  he  concludes  it  nearer  tx<p!xvnry,u,  to  a  dil'ap- 
"  ncaring.  liut  fmcc  he  allows  it  to  continue  for  a  thoufand  or 
"  eleven  hundred  Years  after  this,  how  is  it  possible  for  him  to 
*'  bring  Arguments  for  the  Abolition  of  the  Theocracy  from  the 
«'  Vrim  and  Thiimmivi?  He  could  mean  only  an  Abatement*." 
Hear  now,  t/iy  own  IFonh,  fairly  printed  together,  in  The  Divine 
Legii.'ion  ;  and  let  the  Reader  believe  it,  if  he  can.  T/jis  Treatije  is 
by  no  Means  in  the  number  of  thofe  on  which  Spencer  raifed  his  Repu- 
tation. He  goes  on  a  wrong  Hypothejis  ;  he  ufes  weak  Arguments  ; 
and  be  is  confufed  and  inconsistent  in  his  Ajfertions.  i.  He  :hn:ks 
the  Theocracy  was  ejlablijl-wd  by  Degrees  and  abrogated  by  Degrees. 
A  Conceit  highly  ahjurd^  as  God  was  Legiflator.  He  tizinks  the  firjl 
Step  to  its  IntroduSlion  was  the  delivery  at  the  Red-fea  ;  and  the  jirjl 
Step  to  its  AboHiion^  the  Ifraelites  demand  of  him  a  King  :  That  it  was 
more  impaired  when  Saul  and  David  got  Pojfejfton  of  the  Throne  :  That 
It  approached  much  nearer  its  End  when  it  became  hereditary,  under 
Solomon  :  And  yet,  for  all  this,  that  fome  obfcure  Footjleps  of  it  re- 
mained even  to  the  time  0/ Chrift.  2.  In  his  Abgument  for  the 
Abolition  of  the  Theocracy,  tnjlead  of  employing  the  great  Principles 
of  civil  Policy,  the  only  Means  of  determining  the  ^{cftion  with  cer- 
tainty, he  infijls  much  on  the  Dijufe  of  Urim  and  Thummim,  t§c. 
He  brings  the  defpotic  Power  of  the  Kings  as  another  Argument ;  which, 
1  think,  proves  jujl  the  contrary.  For  were  thefe  Kings  the  Viceroys 
of  God,  whofe  Power  was  defpotic,  their  Power  muji  neceffarily  be  fo 
loo:  not  fo,  if  Monarch s,  in  their  own  Right.  3.  Though  as  we  ob- 
fervcd,  Spencer,  in  the  fecond  Sedtion  of  the  fourth  Chapter,  Jup- 
fofes  a  gradual  Decay  of  the  Theocracy  ;  and  that  even  Jome  objcure 
Footjleps  of  it  remained  to  the  Time  of  Chrift ;  yet  in  the  following 
Seftion  he  all  the  way  argues  upon  the  Supposition  of  an  ab- 
solute AND  entire  Abrogation  4y^''^^  efablif  ment  of  the  Kings  \. 

*  Examination  of  Mr.  Wi  Account,  p.  182,  183. 

t  Div.  Leg.  Vol.  II.  p.  415,  416.     [Vol.  III.  p.  77 — 79,  ed.  410.] 

And 


OCCASION  AL  REFLECTIONS.  495 

And  in  evidence  of  this  laft  Aflcition,  I  quote  at  the  bottom  of  the 
Page  thcfe  following  Words  of  Y^y.  Spencer. — "  Regiminis  hujus 
"  MUTATi   vel   ABROG-ATi    caufa  principalis — De   regiminis   hujus 

*'  ABROGATi  efFeftu   vel  eventu  breviter  diflercndum  eft." -Op. 

Sj>e/2.  p.  241.  24^.   Vol.  I. 

This  then  is  the  whole  of  what  I  faid  of  Dr.  Spencer  on  this  occa- 
fion.  Where  the  Reader  fees,  my  fole  Purpofe  was  to  prove  my 
Aflertion,  that  Dr.  Spencer  argued  weakly  and  mconfJl:nily.  In  the 
firft  Paragraph,  I  (hew  his  Arguments  for  a  gradual  Decoy  are  weak. 
In  tlie  fecond  that  his  Arguments  for  an  Abolition  are  as  weak.  And 
m  the  third,  that  he  was  inconfijlcnt ,  talking  one  while  of  the  con- 
tinuance of  it  to  the  time  of  Chrijl ;  and  another,  of  its  Abrogation 
under  the  Kings.  Now  what  fays  our  learned  Dodlor  to  all  this  F 
Why  in  the  firfl  place,  he  detaches  the  fecond  Paragraph  from  the 
firft  and  third ;  though  they  all  relate  to,  and  conneit  with  one 
another  ;  and  quotes  it  alone  as  if  intire  and  independent.  With 
fiich  a  Liberty  the  Reader  would  reafonably  think  he  might  have 
made  fom.e  fliew  at  leaf!  of  an  Argument :  But,  by  the  good  Pro- 
vifion  of  Nature,  his  Head  was  made  an  exa6t  Tally  to  hii  Heart- 
I  had  faid  that  Spencer  talked  inconfiftently  in,  firft,  fuppufing  a 
gradual  Decay  and  Continuance  to  the  Time  ol  Chrijl ;  and  yet  lay- 
ing that  it  was  abrogated  under  the  Kings.  What  is  his  Anfweri^ 
"  Since  Spencer  allows  it  to  continue  for  a  thoufand  or  eleven  hun- 
"  dred  Years  after  Solomon'' s  Time,  how  is  it  possible  for  him  tO' 
*'  bring  Arguments  for  the  Abolition  of  the  Theocracy  from  the 
*'  difufe  of  Urivi  and  Thummim  ?■  He  could  mean  only  an  Abate- 
•'  ment."  That  is  in  plain  Engli/J: — How  is  it  pojfibk  a  Man  fliould. 
contradift  himfelf  ?  Or  in  ftill  plainer — Vour  Charge  of  Incon- 
sistency m.uft  be  fake,  otherwife  Dr.  Spencer  would  be  incon- 
sistent.. 


VII.  "The: 


496  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 


VII. 

*'  Tiie  third  Objeftioii  of  Mr.  IVarhurton  (fays  our  Dodor)  is, 
*'  that  though  Spencer  m  one  place  fiippofes  a  gradual  Decay  of  the 
*'  7heoracy^  and  that  evenjbme  obfcure  Footfteps  of  it  remained  to  the 
*'  Time  ofC\\v\Qi,yet  in  the  following  SeBion  he  all  the  way  argues  upon 
«'  the  Suppofition  of  an  abfolute  and  entire  Abrogation  by  the  EJiabhJh- 
«'  ment  of  the  Kings,  p.  4.16  *.  Here  again  is  Dr.  Spencer  much 
«*  MISREPRESEN7ED,  from  not  confideruig  what  he  meant  by  the 
*«  Abrogation  of  God's  Government.  Not  that  the  Theocracy 
«*  entirely  ceafed ;  but  the  Government  received  an  Alteration 
*'  and  Abatement.  And  therefore  he  ufes  more  than  once  the 
♦'  Phrafeof  i?c^7«2/«/j-  mutati,  in  this  very  Seftion,  and  tells  us  that 
"  when  the  Jfrae/ites  defired  a  King — hac  in  re  Deus  ab  arte  regis 
'■'■  politici  non  recejjit.  God  did  not  recede  from  the  Art  of  a 
*'  political  Governor,  but  confented  to  their  Requefls  In  order  to 
*'  avoid  a  greater  Evil.  Where  is  the  Abfurdity  or  Inconfiftency 
«•  of  this  Way  of  reafonlng,  unlefs  Abrogation  is  made  to  fignify  a 
♦'  total  Abolition  ;  and  Duration  is  to  be  conftrued  Ceffation  -f-  ? 

*'  Spencer  (fays  he  J  is  much  mifreprefented  ;  he  did  not  mean  by 
"  Abrogation  a  ceasing,  but  an  Alteration  and  Abate- 
*'  MENT."  In  the fr/i  place  then,  it  feems  that  when  one  charges 
an  Author  with  Contradldion  in  his  Expreflions  ;  if  he  had  a  Mean- 
ing, that  was  confident,  he  is  much  mifreprefented.  A  good  com- 
modious Principle  for  the  whole  Clafs  of  Anfwerers  !  Secondly,  he 
lays  that  Abrogation  [regimen  abrogatuni]  does  not  fgnify  ceafng. 
Where  did  he  get  his  Latin  f  Cicero,  Livy,  and  all  the  Roman 
Writers,  Lawyers  as  well  as  Philofophers,  ufe  it  only  in  the  Senfe 
of  DIfiblutlon,  Abolition,  and  the  entire  ceafing  of  an  Office  or 
Command.  What  then  does  it  fignify  ?  why  It  fignlfies  an  Alte- 
ration AND  Abatement.      But  now,  Where  did  he  get  his 

*  Ed.  4.to.  vol.  III.  p.  79. 

t  Exam,  of  Mr.  IF's  Account,  p.  185,  186. 

Englijhf 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  497 

EngliJJj  ?  What !  Is  an  j^lteration  of  Government  only  an  Abate- 
ment of  it  ?  The  Jllteration  of  a  theocracy  we  underftand  :  But 
what  is  the  Abatement  of  it  ?  That  indeed  I  cannot  tell.  But 
this  I  know,  that  we  have  here  a  fufficient  Proof  of  what  I  laid  to 
his  Charge,  that  he  perpetually  confounds  the  Mode  of  Govern- 
ment with  the  Adminiftratlon  of  it :  Alteration  being  applicable  to 
the  former;  znA.  Abatement,  only  to  the  latter.  Thirdly  he  fiiys — > 
*'  and  THEREFORE  Spcticer  ufes  more  than  once  the  Phrafe  of  ;fj/- 
"  mifiis  Mvr  ATI  in  this  very  Sedion." — T'berefdre  I  Wherefore? 
why,  becaufe,  by  abrogati  he  meant  only  abated;  therefore  he  ufes 
mutati,  more  than  once,  to  explain  himfelf;  that  is  to  fay,  becaufe, 
by  totuirif  I  mean  pars;  therefore  I  ufe  (2W«^,  more  than  once, 
to  explain  my  Meaning.  Well,  if  he  did  not  fatisfy  us  before  ; 
he  has  done  it  now.  But  Abrogation  mufl  not  only  fignify  Proro- 
gatioNf  but,  what  is  more,  mutati  muft  fignify  immutati.  Till  now 
we  thought  that  mutatus  had  fignified  changed;  a  grofs  Mifrepre- 
fentation,  fays  he ;  it  fignifies  unchanged^  though  indeed  abated  or 
diminifhed. 

Fourthly,  he  fays  that  Spaicer  tells  us,  when  the  IJraelites  dcfired 
*'  a  King — hoc  in  re  Deus  ab  arte  regis  politici  non  recejfit ;  God  did 
*'  not  recede  from  the  Art  of  a  Political  Governor."  This  the 
Reader  is  to  take  as  a  Proof  of  Spencer'' s  holding  that  God  did  not 
give  up  his  Office ;  and  confequently,  that  there  could  be  no  Abro- 
gation ;  for  we  have  here  to  do  with  a  very  fubtile  Reafoner. — Seri- 
oufly,  the  Blunder  is  a  delightful  one  !  ab  arte  regis  Politici  non  re- 
cejfit, according  to  our  Critic,  fignifies,  that  God  did  not  recede 
from  the  Art  or  Exercife  of  Governing^  or  did  not  throw  up  his 
Office.  He  has  tranflated  the  Words,  we  fee,  verbatim  ;  fo  that  it 
is  a  little  hard  when  he  ftuck  fo  clofe  to  his  Text,  he  (hould  be 
thrown  fo  wide  from  its  Meaning  :  which  is,  indeed,  no  more  than 
this,  that  God  ccndefcended  to  ufe  the  Addrefs  of  Political  Monarchs, 
who,  when  they  cannot  flop  or  repel  a  Torrent,  contrive  to  elude 
it.  And  "  where/T^jyi  he)  is  the  Abfurdity  or  Inconfiftency  of  this 
"  way  of  reafouing  ?"— -Nay,  for  that  matter,  tlie  Reafoning  is  full 

Vol.  VI.  S  s  s  as 


498         R  E  xM  A  R  K  S    ON    SEVERAL 

ns  good  as  tlie  Tranflatioii.  Eiit  here  he  fliould  have  ftopp'cl  Fo? 
fo  fatal  is  his  Exprettion,  when  the  Fit  is  upon  him,  tliat  he  can- 
not afli  quarter  for  one  Blunder  without  committing  another — "iin- 
*♦  lefs  Abrogation  is  made  to  llgnify  a  total  Abolition,  and 
•«  Duration  Is  conftrued  to  be  Cessation  r"  I  can  find  (fays  hf} 
110  Ablurdity  or  Inconfiftency  in  Dr.  Spencer  without  perverting  the^ 
common  Signification  of  Words, — This  is  h\s  Argument— IV/i/jout- 
calling  DuraUon,  CejJaUon — fo  far  is  well.  But  he  goes  on — and, 
Jlbro-^atkn^  Jbolithn.  And  here  he  finks  again.  Y ox  Abrogation  wt,?. 
Abolition,  ia  all  Niitions  and  Languages,  till  Dr.  Sykes  firft  pleaded 
in  Abatement. 

In  a  word,  the  Charge. againft6)«'^«c^/-  was  oi  Abfurdity  and  Con- 
tradition  in  one  Inflance  amidft  a  thoufand  Excellencies.  Dr.  Sykes^ 
afl'umes  the  Honour  of  his  Defence.  But  with  what  Judgment  he- 
fbon  lets  us  underftand,  when  he  can  find  no  other  Pa/t  of  that  im- 
mortal Book  to  do  himfelf  the  Credit  of  fupporting  than  his  Treatife 
of  the  Theocracy.  Like  the  ancient  Advocate  of  Cicero,  who,  while 
that  great  Man's  Charafter  was  torn  in  pieces  by  his  Enemies,  the^ 
Flatterers  of  Oclaviiis,  would  needs  vindicate,  him  from  the  IVari 
upon  his  Nofe,  againft  his.  Friends. 

Hitherto  the  Controverfy  was  unnaturaL  Dr.  Sykes  became  Ad- 
vocate for  Spencer  againft  an  Accufation  brought  by  the  Author  of' 
Jhe  Divine  Legation.  But  Both  foon  return  again  to  their  proper 
Bufinefs :  He  to  objefting  againft  the  extraordinary  Providence  of. 
Heaven ;  ly  to  a.  Defence  of  this  certain  and  neceffary  Confequeuce- 
of  a  Theocracy\r 

viri. 

*'  Let  us  now  proceed  (fays  the  learned Do^or J  to  the  fecond  Point,, 
"  which  relates  to  theExercife  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  over 
•'  particular  Perfons  as  well  as  over  the  State  in  general.  The  Scrip- 
*'  ture  Reprefentation  of  the  Theocracy,  as  Mr.  fVarburton  affmes  us, 
"  was,  I.  01  er  the  State  in  general :  and  2.  over  private  Men  in  parti- 

*«  (ular. 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIOKS.  499 

"  cular,  p.  434.  *.  I  have  no  Doubts  about  the  fbrmer  of  thefc 
"  Cafes  :  For  where  a  Law  was  given  by  God,  and  he  condefcended 
*'  to  become  King  of  a  Nation,  and  a  folemn  Covenant  was  en- 
*'  tered  into  by  the  People,  and  by  God,  as  their  King,  and  where 
*'  Bleffings  were  folemnly  promifed  upon  Obedience  to  the  Law, 
"  or  Curfes  were  denounced  upon  Difobedience  :  and  this  by  one 
*'  who  was  able  to  execute  whatever  he  engaged ;  no  Doubt  can 
*'  be  about  the  reciprocal  Obligations,  or  about  God's  performing 
*'  his  Part  of  the  Obligation,  fince  it  is  his  Property  not  to  lie  nor 
"  deceive.  Temporal  Rewards  atid  Punishments  being  then  the 
*'  Sandion  of  the  JeiciJJ}  Law,  thefe  mull:  be  difpenfed  by  God  fo 
**  as  to  inake  the  State  happy  and  flourifliing  if  they  kept  the 
*'  Law,  or  elfe  miferable  if  they  difobeyed  it.  If  they  obfervcd  and 
**  did  all  the  Commandments,  which  God  commanded  them,  God 
*'  had  engaged  to  make  them  high  above  all  Nations  which  he  had 
**  made,  in  Praife,  and  in  Name,  and  in  Honour  ;  and  if  Enemies  rofe 
*■*  up  againjl  thevi,  the  Lord  would  caufe  them  to  be  fmilten.  On  the 
"  other  hand,  if  they  grew  negligent  of  the  Law,  or  went  nfide 
'■'^  from  any  of  the  IVords  commanded  them — toferve  other  Gods,  then 
"  the  Lord  was  to  fend  Curjing,  Vexation,  and  Rebuke  in  all  Tiioir 
'■''  fettefl  THINE  Hand  unto  for  to  do,  until  thou  be  dejlroyed  and  until 
**  THOU  perifh  quickly.  The  Bleffings  and  Curfes  were  general 
"  and  national,  agreeable  to  the  Charafter  of  a  King,  and  a  legal 
*'  Adminiftration  :  Such  as  related  to  them  as  a  People  ;  and  not 
*«  to  particular  Perfons-j~." 

Here,  he  affures  us,  *'  he  has  no  Doubts  about  the  extraordinary 
Providence  over  the  State  in  general."  And  he  tells  us  his  Rca- 
fon, — Becaufe  "  the  Law  was  given  by  God,  and  he  condefcended 
*'  to  become  the  King  of  the  Nation,  by  a  folemn  Covenant  made 
*'  with  the  People."  This,  I  fay,  is  his  Reafon,  when  taken  out 
of  the  Verbiage  of  his  Expreffion.     Now  if  it  can  be  proved  that 

*  Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  H2. 

t  Exam,  of  Mr.  W's  Account,  &c,  p.  186,  1S7. 

S  S  S  2  this 


500  Px  E  M  A  R  K  S    ON    SEVERAL 

this  ver>'  Reafoii  holds  equally  ftrong  for  an  extraordinary  Provi- 
dence over  Particulars^  this fecofid  Pointy  as  he  calls  it,  will  be  foon 
<lccided  between  us.  In  order  to  this,  let  me  afk  him  what  thof& 
Reaibns  are  whereby  he  infers  that,  from  God's  becoming  King  of  a 
Katiofty  he  mufl:  adminifter  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  the 
State  in  general^  which  do  not  equally  conclude  for  God's  admi- 
niftring  it  over  Particulars  ?  Is  not  his  Inference  founded  upon 
tins,  That  where  God  condefeends  to  affume  a  Civil  Charader,  he 
condefcends  to  adminifter  it  in  a  Civil  Manner  ?  Which  is  done 
by  extending  his  Care  over  the  Whole.  If  our  Do£tor  fays,  his 
Inference  is  not  thus  founded  ;  I  mufl:  then  beg  leave  to  tell  him, 
that  he  has  no  Foundation  at  all  to  conclude,  from  God's  being 
King,  that  there  was  an  extraordinary  Providence  exerted  over  the 
State  in  general.  If  he  fays,  it  is  thus  founded  ;  then  I  infer,,  upoa 
the  fame  grounds,  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  Particulars, 
For  the  Juftice  of  the  regal  Office  is  equally  concerned  in  extending 
its  Care  to  Particulars  as  ta  the  State  in  general.  It  may  be  afked 
then,  what  hindered  our  Examiner  from  feeing  fo  felf- evident  a 
Truth  ?  I  reply,  an  old  inveterate  Blunder,  with  which  he  flrfl 
fet  out ;  and  which  yet  flicks  to  him.  I  have  obferved  above  what 
Confufion  he  ran  into  by  not  being  able  to  diflinguifh  between  the 
Foj-m  of  Government  and  the  Adminijiration  of  it.  Here  again  he 
makes  the  fame  blind  work  from  not  feeing  the  Difference  between 
a  Legiflator  and  a  King.  *'  For  where  a  Law  (fays  he)  was  given 
"  by  God,  and  he  condefcended  to  become  the  King  of  a  Na- 
*'  tion,  Cc."  implying  that,  in  his  Opinion,  the  giving  a  Law, 
and  the  becoming  a  Kingy  was  one  and  the  fame  thing.  Hence  it 
was,  that  as  the  Legijlative  Powery  in  the  Inflitution  of  good  Laws,, 
extends  its  Providence  only  over  tlie  State  in  general,  he  concluded, 
that  the  executive  Power,  in  the  Adminiflration  of  thofe  Laws, 
does  no  more.  Which  brings  him  to  a  Conclufion  altogether  worthy 
the  Abilities  exerted  in  the  Dilucidation  of  his  Prcmijfei — ''  The 
"  BlefTings  and  Curfes  (fays  he)  were  general  and  national,  agree- 

"  ABLE 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  501 

•*  ABLE  TO   THE  CHARACTER  OF  A  KiNG  AND  A    LEGAL    AdmI- 

•*  NisTRATiON." — What !  Is  it  only  agreeable  to  the  Character  of 
a  King  and  a  legal  Adnainiftration  to  take  Care  of  the  State  in  ge- 
neral, and  not  of  Particulars  ?  So,  according  to  this  new  Syftem  of 
Policy,  it  is  agreeable  to  the  Conftitution  of  England  to  fit  out 
Fleets,  to  protect  the  Public  from  Infults,  and  to  enai5l  Laws  to 
encourage  Commerce  ;  but  not  to  eredl  Courts  of  Equity,  or  to 
fend  about  itinerant  Judges.  What  makes  our  Examiner's  Igno- 
rance in  this  matter  the  more  inexcufable  is,  that  I  had  pointed  out 
to  him  this  lyiftin^ton,  in  the  following  Paflage ;  the  former  Part 
©f  which  he  has  quoted,  but  dropt  the  latter,  as  if  determined  that 
neither  himfelf  nor  Reader  (hould  be  the  better  for  it.  My  Words 
are  thefe  :  //  [the  extraordinary  Providence]  is  reprefented  as  admi- 
ni fired,  i.  aver  the  State  in  general.  2.  Over  private  Men  in  parti- 
cular.  And  fuch  a  Reprefcntation  vje  ft:ould  expeSl  to  find  from  the 
Nature  of  the  Republic;  because  as  an  extraordinary  Provi- 
dence OVER  THE  State  necessarily  follows  God's  being 
THEIR  tutelary  Deity  [in  which  Capacity  he  gave  them  Laws]; 

80  AN  extraordinary  PrOVIDENCE  TO  PARTICULARS  FOLLOWS 
AS  necessarily  FROM  HIS  BEING  THEIR  SUPREME  MAGISTRATE*. 

Here  then  1  might  fairly  leave  him,  having  proved  my  Pofition  on 
the  very  fame  Principles,  and  in  the  very  fame  manner,  he  has 
proved  his  own.     But  let  us  hear  him  out. 

IX. 

He  proceeds  to  tell  his  Reader  what  is  the  Queftion  between  us^. 
But  we  now  know  enough  of  him  to-be  upon  our  guard  whenever 
he  begins  to  tell  his  Story.  And,  in  truth,  it  is  no  more  than 
needs.  For  here  he  tops  his  Part.  "  The  Queftion  then  ffays  l.c): 
*♦  that  now  is  to  be  confidered  is,  whether  an  extraordinary  Pro- 
*♦  vidence  was  adiiilniftrcd  to  Particulars  in  fuch  a  manner,  that 

*  Divine  Le-ation,  Vol.  ]I.  p.  436,     [Sec  Vol.  HI.  p.   lu,   Ed.  4(0.] 

'■'•  ng; 


508  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

*UwTr\wf^reJfor  cfcaped  Punijhment,  nor  any  Obferver  of  the  Law 
"  )ii:fclhis  Reward.  This  was  the  State  of  the  Jews  under  an 
''  equal  Providence,  as  Mr.  Warbiirtonttlh  us,  p.  452  *,  and  by  this 
"  means  human  J  fairs  might  be  kept  in  good  order  without  the  Doc- 
**  trine  of  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Funijhments.  That  God  did 
•'  blefs  particular  Perfons  amongft  the  Jeus^  as  well  as  now  he  does 
"  in  all  Nations,  is  certain  ;  But  that  he  fo  diFpenfed  his  Favours, 
*«  as  that  m  0/ferier  of  the  Law  jnifjed  his  Reward,  nor  did  any 
*'  Tranfgreffor  efcape  Punifmient,  is  far  from  being  clear.  The  Na- 
"  tion,  confidcred  as  a  Nation,  had  this  peculiar  to  it,  that  when 
"  they  did  evil  in  the  fight  of  the  Lord,  they  were  delivered  into 
"  the  Hands  of  their  Enemies.  When  they  repented  and  put  away 
"  the  flrange  Gods  from  amongft  them  and  ferved  the  Lord,  they 
"  were  delivered.  Jnftances  of  this  are  frequent  in  the  Book  of 
**  yw^^^-f,  and  in  the  Hiftory  of  the  Kings  of  Ifrael.  But  if 
*'  we  defcend  to  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  Particulars, 
*'  even  in  thofe  Times,  I  do  not  remember  what  will  amount  to 
"  Proof  f." 

He  fays  the  Queftion  between  us  is,  "  Whether  an  extraordinary 
*'  Providence  to  Particulars  was  admlniftred  in  such  a  Manner, 
**  that  no  Tranfgreflbr  efcaped  Punifhment,  nor  any  Obferver  o^  the 
"  Law  mifled  his  Reward."  On  the  contrary,  he  himfelf  owns, 
in  the  very  preceding  Paragraph,  that  the  Quefllon  between  us  is 
fimply  this,  whether  the  extraordinary  Providence  was  only  over 
the  State  in  general  ;  or  whether  it  extended  to  Particular.-.  And 
on  that  occafion  fairly  quotes  the  Paflage  where  I  ftated  the  Na- 
ture of  this  extraordinary  Providence.  Nay,  in  the  very  Paragraph 
juft  quoted  from  liim,  he  owns,  in  Conclufion,  that  the  Queftion 
is  about  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  Particulars  ;  without  con- 
fuiing  or  extending  it  to  this  or  that  Mode  ;  for  he  denies  the  very 

*  Ed,  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  136,  137. 

«t  Exam,  of  Mr,  W's  Actount,  &c.  p.  187,  188. 

thing 


( 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  503 

filing  itfelf.  What  then  are  we  to  fuppofe  was  his  Drift  in  changing 
the  State  of  the  Queftion  ;  and  telhng  us  now,  that  it  is,  whcthcr 
"  the  extraordinary  Providence  was  adminiriircd  in  such  a  manner 
**  that  no  Tranfgrejfor  ejcaped  Piin'ifiment,  nor  any  Obferver  of  the 
'•^  Laiv  mijj'ed  his  Reward  V  What  think  you  ?  But  to  introduce  n 
cominodious  Fallacy  under  an  ambiguous  Exjjreflion  ;  that  fliould 
be  always  at  hand  to  aufwer  his  Occafions  ?  Which,  we  fhall  find 
as  we  go  along,  thh  always  is.  And  indeed  the  cautious  Reader 
(and  1  would  advife  no  other  to  have  to  do  with  him)  will  fufpedl 
no  lefs,  when  he  obferves  that  the  Words,  \no  TranfgrejJ'or  ejcaped 
Piinijloment,  nor  any  Obferver  of  the  Lazv  miffed  his  Reward']  quoted' 
from  me,  are  not  to  be  found  in  that  place  where  I  ftated  the 
Nature  of  the  extraordinary  Providence;  but  in  another.  Where 
Ifpeak  of  the  Confequences  of  it,  in  thefe  Words. — We  have  Jtseivn 
at  large  in  the  fir ji  Volume^  that  under  a  common  or  unequal  Provi- 
vidence,  civil  Government  could  not  be  [upported  without  a  Religion, 
teaching  a  future  Stale  cf  Reward  arid  Piiniflmient,.  And  it  is  ths 
great  Purpofe  of  this  Work  to  prove,  that  the  Mofaic  Religion  ivanting 
that  Do£lrine,  the  Jews  mtf}  necejfarily  have  enjoyed  an  equal  Pr:vi' 
de?ice  under  which  holy  Scripture  reprefents  them  to  have  lived.  And 
THEN,  no  Tranfgrefj'or  efcaping  Punifhment,  nor  any  Obferver  cf  the 
haw  miffing  his  Reward,  human  Affairs  mufl  be  kept  in  good  order 
•withoitt  the  Dodirine  of  a  future  State  *.  What  now  has  this  ^«* 
fjverer  by  Profeffion  done  ?  He  has  taken  the  Words  \iio  Tranfgreffor 
efcaping  Punijhment,  nor  any  Obferver  of  the  Law  miffing  his  Reward] 
from  their  natural  place,  mifreprefented  their  Purpofe,  and  given 
them  to  the  Reader  as  my  Definition  of  an  extraordinary  Provi- 
dence  to  Particulars  ;  and,  not  content  with  that,  has  put  this  fallen 
jind  fophiflical  Senfe  upon  them,  that  no  one  single  Person, 
WITHOUT  exception,  ever  ei'caped  Punifliment,  or  ever  miffed  his 
Reward.     And  in  thi.^  monftrous  Senfe  he,  by  the  worll:  Prcvaiir 

*  Div.  Leg.  Vol.  II.  p.  454.     [Vol.  HI.  p.  lyC^  Ed.  410.} 


50+  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

cation,  repents,  and  applies  them,  on  every  following  Occafion,  as 
the  fole  anfwer  to  all  my  Reafonings  on  the  Suhjea  of  an  extraor- 
dinary Providence.  To  prepare  the  Reader  thefore,  for  a  proper 
Reception  of  all  the  miferable  Chicane  that  arifes  out  of  this  his 
nPXlTON  TETAOS,  I  fliall  here  fliew,  that  the  Words  [no  Tranf- 
'rrejfor  efcapmq  Punifimenty  nor  any  Obfer-uer  of  the  Law  miffing  his 
Reward]  could  not  mean  by  any  Rules  of  juft  Conftrudlon,  that 
e\ try  Jingle  Per/on^  without  Exception,  was  thus  punifhed  and  re- 
warded ;  but  only  that  this  very  extraordinary  Providence  over  par- 
ticulars was  fo  exaaiy  admlniftred,  as  that  no  one  could  hope  to 
efcape  it,  or  fear  to  be  forgotten  by  it. 

Firjl  then,  Let  it  be  obferved,  that  the  Words  are  no  ahjolute 
AlTertion  ;  but  a  Confequence  of  fomething  aflerted. — And  then 
tio  Tranfgrejfor  efcaping,  &c.  which  illative  Words  the  honcfl:  Exa- 
miner omitted.  Now  what  had  been  aflerted  *  was  (imply  this, 
that  the  extraordinary  Providence  over  the  Jews  was,  in  Scripture, 
reprefented  as  Adminlftered  over  Particulars  ;  but  that  this  very 
Admlniftration  would  of  Neceflity  be  attended  with  fome  Inequa- 
lities f.  Muft  not  then  the  Confequence  I  draw  from  thefe  Pre- 
mifles  be  as  reflirained  as  the  Premiffes  themfelves  ?  Secondly,  I 
faid,  that  God  had  promifed  an  equal  Providence  to  Particu- 
lars, but  that  he  had  declared  at  the  fame  time  how  it  fhould 
be  adminlftered,  vi%,  in  fuch  a  manner  as  would  occafion  fome 
few  Exceptions.  If  therefore  Do£lor  Sykes  would  not  allow  me, 
he  ought  to  have  allowed  God,  at  leaf!:,  the  right  of  explain- 
ing himfelf.  Thirdly,  had  the  Words  been  abfolute,  as  they  then 
might  have  admitted  of  two  Senfes,  did  not  common  Ingenuity  re- 
quire, that  I  fliould  be  underftood  in  that  which  was  eafieft  to  prove, 
when  it  was  equally  to  my  Purpofe  ?  Which  is  an  extraordinary 
Providence  over  Particulars  in  the  manner  here  explained.  But 
there  was  flill  more  than  this  to  lead  an  ingenuous  Man  into  my 
meaning  ;  which  was,  that  he  might  obferve,  that  I  ufed,  througli- 

*  Dlv.  Leg.  Vol.  ]J.  p.  436.    tVol.  III.  p.  112.  Ed.  4to.] 
+  Id.  lb.  p.  445.     [Ed.  4to.  vol.  III.  p.  121,] 

out 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  505 

out  my  whole  Difcourfe  of  the  JcwiJJj  Oeconomy,  the  Words  ex- 
traordinary Providence  and  equal  Providence,  as  equivalent.  By 
which  he  would  underftand  that  I  all  along  admitted  of  Exceptions. 
Fourthly,  If  fuch  rare  Cafes  of  Exception  deftroyed  an  equal  Pro- 
vidence to  Particulars  (which  Providence  I  hold),  it  would  de- 
ftroy  with  it  the  equal  Providence  to  the  State  (which  Doc- 
tor ^Sy^YJ  pretends  to  hold).  But  if  not  for  the  fake  of  Truth 
in  Opinion,  yet  for  fliir-dealing  in  Praftice,  Doftor  Sykes  fhoulJ 
have  interpreted  my  Words  not  abfolutely,  but  with  Exceptions. 
For  thus  flood  the  Cafe.  He  quoted  two  Pofitions  from  the  Di- 
vine Legation.  I.  That  there  was  an  extraordinary  Providence  over 
the  State  in  general.  2.  Over  private  Men  in  particular.  He  grants 
the  firfl: ;  and  denies  the  fecond.  But  is  not  the  Extent  of  that  Pro- 
vidence underflood  to  be,  in  both  Cafes,  the  fame  ?  Now  in  that 
over  the  State,  he  underftands  it  to  have  been  with  Exceptions,  as 
appears  from  his  own  mention  of  the  Cafe  ol  Achan  p.  190; 
and  of  David,  p.  197.  Ought  he  not  then,  by  all  the  Rules 
of  honeft  Reafon,  to  have  underftood  the  Propofition-dcnied,  iu 
the  fame  Senfe  he  underfiands  the  Propofition-granted  ?  If  in  the 
Adminiftration  over  the  State  in  general,  there  were  fome  few  Ex- 
ceptions, Why  not  in  that  over  private  Men  in  particular  ? 

But  if  now  the  candid  Reader  will  alk  me  why  I  employed 
Expreffions  that,  when  divorced  from  the  Context,  might  be 
abufed  by  a  Caviler  to  a  perverfe  meaning,  I  will  tell  him  :  I  ufed 
them  in  Imitation  of  the  Language  of  the  Apoftle,  who  fays  tliat, 
under  the  Jcu-ijh  Oeconomy,  every  TranfgrcJJion  and  Difobedience 
received  a  jujl  Recompence  of  Reward*.  And  if  he  be  to  be  under- 
flood  with  Exceptions,  why  may  not  I  ? 

Having  now  expofed,  as  it  deferves,  this  Mafter  Fallacy,  the 
Rabble  of  Sophifms,  which  follow  it,  and  pretend  to  make  their 
Fortune  by  it,  are  eafily  difperfed.  But  before  we  come  to  that, 
we  have  fomething  further  to  fay  to  the  Paragraph  in  Hand.    Wc 

*  Heb.  ii.  2. 

Vol.  VI.  T  t  t  obferved, 


5o6  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

obfcivcJ,  that,  In  concluding  "it,  he  returns  again  to  the  true  State 

of  the  Queaion.— Thefe  are  his  Words.—"  But  if  we  defcend  to 

•'  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  Particulars  even  in  thofe  Times 

«'  [the  Judges  and  Kings  of  Ifrae/],  I  do  not  ren:iember  what  will 

**  amount  to  Proof."     To  aflift  his  bad  Memory,  or  long  Abfence 

from  his  Bible,  I  fhall  quote  again  from  T6e  Divine  Legaiion,  the 

following  Paffages.— /«  the  Dcclicntion  ofthefirjl  Temple  Solomon  ad- 

drejfes  his  Prayer  to  God  that  the  Covenant  betiveen  him  and  the  Feo- 

fk  might  remain  for  ever  firm  and  inviolate,  and  the  old  Oeconomy 

be  fUU  continued.     Jnd  after  having  enumerated  divers  Parts  oj  it, 

he  proceeds   in    thefe  Words :   When  the  Heaven   is  (hut  up,    and 

there  is  no  Rain,  becaufe  they  have  fnned  againft  thee  ;  yet  if  they 

pray  towards  this  Place,  and  confefs  tjiy  Name,  and  turn  from 

their  Sin  when  thou  doft  affllft   them  :    Then    hear   thou    from- 

Heaven,  and  forgive  the  Sin  of  thy  Servants,  and  of  thy  People 

Ifrael,  when  thou  haft  taught  them  the  good  way,  wherein  they 

Ihould  walk  ;  and  fend  Rain  upon  the  Land,  which  thou  haft  given 

unto  thy  People  for  an  Inheritance.     If  there  be  Dearth  in  the 

Land,  if  there  be  Peftilence,  if  there  be  Blafting  or  Mildew,  Locuft 

or  Caterpillars ;  if  their  Enemies  befiege  them  in  the  Cities  of  their 

Land ;    whatfoever  Sore  or  whatfoever  Sicknefs  there  be :  Then 

what  Prayer  or  what  Supplication  fhall  be  made  of  any  Man,  or  of 

all  thy  People  Jfrael,  ivhen  every  one  f mil  know  his  own  Sore,  and  his 

otvn  Grief  and  ihail  fpread  forth  his  Hands  in  this  Houfe;  then  hear 

thou  from  Heaven  and  forgive,  and  render  unto  every  Man  according 

unto  all  his  Ways,  whofe  Heart  thou  knoweft  *.     The  Ffahn'ift  bears 

his  Tcfimony  to  the  fame  Oeconomy  ;  1  have  been  young  ffoys  he)  and 

now  am  old  :  yet  have  I  not  feen  the  Righteous  forfaken,  nor  his  Seed 

begging  their  Bread  t.    God  himjelf  declares  it  by  the  Prophet  Ifaiah  : 

Say  ye  to  the  Righteous  that  it  fhall  be  well  with  him  :    for  they 

Ihall  tat  the  Fruit  of  their  Doings.  Wo  unto  the  Wicked,  it  Ihall  be 

*  2  Chron.  vi.  28.  et  feq.  +  Pfal.  xxxvii.  25. 

ill 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  507 

ill  with  him:  for  the  Reward  of  his  hands  (hall  be  given  him*.  yJnd 
again:  He  that  walketh  righteoufly  and  ipeaketh  uprightly,  etc. 
he  (hall  dwell  on  high  :  his  place  of  Defence  fliall  be  the  Muni- 
tions of  Rocks,  Bread  fliall  be  given  him,  his  Waters  fliall  be  fure  f. 
^nd  we  kart^from  a  parabolical  Command  in  Ezekiel  bow  exaEily 
thefe  Promijes  were  fulfilled :  And  the  Lord  faid  unto  him,  Go  through 
the  Midll:  of  the  City,  through  the  M'xAii  oi  Jerujalem,  and  fct  a 
INlark  upon  the  Foreheads  of  the  Men  that  figh,  and  that  cry  for 
all  the  Abominations  that  be  done  in  the  midft  thereof.  And  to 
others  he  faid  in  mine  hearing.  Go  ye  after  him  through  the  City, 
and  fmite :  let  not  your  Eye  fpare,  neither  have  ye  Pity.  Slay 
utterly  old  and  young,  both  Maids  and  little  Children,  and  Women  ; 
but  come  not  near  any  Man  upon  lohom  is  the  Mark  ;  and  begin  at 
my  Sanduary  |,  ^c.  But  God,  by  the  Prophet  Amos,  dcj'cribes 
this  Adnwiijiration  of  Providence  inihe  fulleji  manner :  Alfo  I  have 
witholden  the  Rain  from  you,  when  therewas  yet  three  Months 
to  the  Harveft,  and  I  caufed  it  to  rain  upon  one  City,  and  caufed 
it  not  to  rain  upon  another  City  :  one  Piece  was  rained  upon,  and 
the  Piece  whereupon  it  rained  not,  withered.  So  two  or  three 
Cities  wandered  into  one  City  to  drink  Water ;  but  they  were  not 
fatisfied  :  yet  have  ye  not  returned  unto  me,  faith  the  Lord.  1  have 
fmitten  you  with  Blafting  and  Mildew,  ©"c.  §.  And  again:  Lo  I 
will  command,  and  I  will  fift  the  Houfe  of  Ifrael  amongfl:  all  Na- 
tions, like  as  Corn  is  fifted  in  a  Sieve,  yet  fhall  not  the  leaft  Grain 
fall  upon  the  Earth  |(.  Yet  all  this  he  had  overlooked  as  not  amount- 
ing, 1  fuppofe,  to  Proof, 


*  Chap.   iii.  v.  lO,   it. 

t  Chap,  xxxiii.  v.   15,  16,  }  Chap.  ix.  v.  4,  5, 

§  Chap.  jv.  V.  7— 1 1.  U  Chap.  ix.  v.  9. 


T  t  t    2  X.   At 


5o8  REMARKS     ON    SEVERAL 

X. 

At  laft  he  owns  I  had  allowed,  "  that  the  [acred IVrh'mgi  them- 
^'■fiivfsjreelyfpeak  of  the  Inequality  of  Providence  to  Particulars  in 
♦•  fucb  a  manner  as  Men  living  under  a  common  Providence  are  accuf- 
«*  tomcd  tofpeak  «."  Which  fhews  it  was  impoflible  I  fhould  meaa 
the  Propofition  of  No  Trarfgreffor  ever  efcaping  Punijl:ment,  Sec.  m 
the  Senfe  he  has  put  upon  it.  But  this  is  fo  far  from  fhaming  him 
for  his  Prevarication,  that,  after  having  given  Examples  to  confirm 
my  Obfervation  of  the  Sacred  Writers  fpeaking  of  the  InequaUties  cf 
Providence,  he  goes  on  thus :  "  This  Objeftion  taken  from  the 
*'  Complaints  made  by  the  Sacred  Writers  was  fo  full  and  ftrong, 
*'  that,  though  Mr.  IVarhurtan  promifes  to  prove  hereafter  that  an 
*'  equal  Providence  was  a£lually  adminiftered,  yet,  for  his  Reader's 
•'  prefent  SalisfaSiion,  he  will  fhew,  that  thefe  Reprefentalions  of 
*'  Inequality  are  very  confijlent  with  that  before  given  of  the  Equality 
*'  of  Providence.  1  will  examine  with  as  much  brevity  as  1  can, 
•«  what  he  has  fald ;  and  leave  you  to  judge  whether  he  has  faid 
"  enough  to  give  his  Reader  fre/ent  Saiisfa^ion  -f." 

The  fuft  Remark  I  (hall  make  on  this  Pafl'age  is,  that  it  repre- 
fents  me  forced  to  make  an  Acknowledgement,  not  out  of  any  re- 
gard to  Truth,  but  through  Neceflky.  Secondly,  where  he  fays 
that  I  promife  to  prove  hereafter  that  an  equal  Providence  was  adlually 
admin'fered,  he  mi/lakes,  as  ufual,  my  Senfe,  and  fuppofes  I  meant, 
in  the  third  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legation.  Whereas  all,  who  un- 
derftand  that  Book,  know  I  meant,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Second, 
then  in  my  Hands.  And  even  he  himfelf  may  now  fee  as  much, 
by  the  (hort  view  I  have  given  of  it,  in  the  firft  part  of  thefe  Re- 
marks: where  fpeaking  of  this  Matter,  I  exprefs  myfelf  in  the  fol- 
lowing Terms. — Here  the  Reader  fhould  ohferve  that  my  Argument 
does  not  require  me  to  prove  more  than  that  an  extraordinary  Provi- 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  W's  Account,  &.c.  p.  188.  [See  alfo  Div.  Leg.  Vol.  III.  p.  120. 
of  tliis  edition.]  ^  Exam.  &c.  p.  191. 

denct 


OCCAS  I  ONAL  REFLECTIONS.  509 

dcnce  is  Represented  in  Scripture  to  he  adminijicred :  The  Proof  of 
its  REAL  Adminijlration  it  is  the  Purpofe  of  ibis  Work  to  give  through 
the  great  Medium  of  my  Thefes,  "  The  Owijfion  of  the  Dc&ritie  of  a 
**  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punipments^^  If  therefore  I  clearlf 
fljewfrom  the  tvhole  fewi/h  Hijlory  that  the  matter  is  thus  reprefented, 
the  Inference  from  »/>■  Medium,  which  proves  the  Reprcfentation  true, 
anfwers  all  Objedlions,  both  as  to  our  inadequate  Conception  of  the  Man- 
ner bowfuch  a  Providence  could  be  adviinifercd ',  and  as  to  certain 
Pajfages  in  holy  Scripture  that  feem  to  clap  with  this  its  general 
Representation.  And  yet  both  thefe  ObjeBions  (to  have  no  padoio 
of  doubt  tmfatisfedj  are  confidered  likewif  *.  Thefe  Conf  derations 
our  Examiner  has  now  attacked.     Let  us  lee  with  what  fuccefs. 

XL 

He  tells  the  Reader,  my  firft  Confideratlon  is,  "  That  when  the 
*'  Sacred  Writers  fpeak  of  the  Inequality  of  Providence,  and  the  unfit 
"  Difi  ibution  of  Things,  they  fometimes  mean  that  State  of  it  amongfi 
*'  their  Pagan  Neighbours,  and  not  in  Judea,  as  particularly  in  the 
»'  Book  of  Pfalms  and  Ecclefaflss,  p.  443  f-"  To  this  he  replies, — 
*'  Afaph,  or  whoever  was  the  Author  of  the  Pfalm  before  cited, 
*'  complains  heavily  at  the  Profperity  of  the  Wicked.  Thefe  wickaJ 
*'  Men  were,  it  feems,  not  fews,  but  his  Pagan  Neighbours  j," 
&c.  Would  not  any  one,  now  believe,  that  this  Pfahn  before 
cited  was  one  I  had  cited,  to  prove  that,  in  the  Book  of  P films  the 
Writers  of  it  fometimes  mean  that  State  of  Providence  amongfi  their 
Pagan  Neighbours  ?  So  far  from  it,  I  had  cited  it  to  the  very  con- 
trary purpofe ;  as  a  Proof  of  the  extraordinary  Providence  to  the 
Jewijh  People,  who  are  there  all  along  fpoken  of.  But  what  then  ? 
He  had  cited  it  a  Page  or  two  before :  And  his  Trade  required  him- 
to  cite  it  again.     Or  did    he,  indeed,  imagine,  that   when    1   faid, 

*  Remarks  on  Several  Occafional  Refiedions,  Part  I.  p.  99,  100.  [Sec  alfo  Vol.  VU. 
p.  329,  of  this  Ediion.] 

f   Ed.  4to,  Vol.  III.  p.  120. 

X  Exam,  of  Mr.  /^'^  Account,  p.  191,  192. 

The 


5IO  PxEMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

The  Wt'ticn  of  ike  Book  of  Ffuhm  fomet'imes  fpoke  cfihat  State  bf 
Providence  amongH  their  Pagan  Ndgbbcurs,  I  meant  in  every  Pialm  ? 
It  is  hard  to  tell.'  I  have  fometimes  catched  him  at  a  worfe  In- 
terence.  However,  as  he  loves  to  be  encouraged,  I  (hall  fay  no 
more  to  him  of  the  Pfilms,  till  he  has  cited,  and  of  courfe  mif. 
interpreted,  every  one  of  them  :  And  then  he  may  hear  further 
from  mc. 

In  tlic  other  Cafe  of  Ecclefq/les  (thanks  however  to  the  Nature 
of  the  Book)  he  has  argued  fairer  at  leaft.  "  Much  lefs  ftill  (fays 
•'  he)  is  the  Reflexion  of  the  Preacher  in  Ecclefajles  defigned  to  re- 
-«'  late  to  his  Pagan  Neighbours.  It  is  an  univerfal  Oblervation, 
*'  that  the  Work  of  God  is  inscrutable  even  to  a  IVife  Man.  On 
"  which  Account  the  Author  propofes  to  declare,  that  no  Man  could 
"  judge  of  either  Love  or  Hatred  by  what  was  before  him,  ffice  all 
*'  Thirn^s  come  alike  to  all,  there  is  one  Event  to  the  Righteous  and  to 
"  the  Wicked,  &c.  This  was  an  Evil  among  all  Things  done  und.r  the 
*'  Sun,  that  there  is  one  Event  to  all.  Has  he  made  any  Exception 
*'  for  Ifraelf  No  :  but  he  maintains,  lijat  the  Race  is  not  to  the 
*'  Su-ift ;  nor  the  Battle  to  the  Strong  ;  neither  yet  Bread  to  the  Wife  ; 
*'  nor  yet  Riches  to  the  Men  of  Vnderfanding  ;  nor  yet  Favour  to  Men 
«'  of  Skill ;  but  Time  and  Chance  happeneth  to  them  all,  Ecclef  ix,  1 1. 
"  Could  a  Wife  Man,  under  an  Extraordinary  Providence  himfelf, 
"  talk  in  this  Manner,  thus  Univerfally,  and  make  no  Exceptions 
*•  for  his  own  Nation  ?  Eid  he  not  fee  a  Difference  betwixt  the 
*'  People  of  Ifrael,  and  all  other  People  ?  Or  if  there  was  fuch  a 
*'  Ditference  as  Mr.  Warburton  contends  for,  could  he  fail  raking  No- 
"  tice  of  it  r  Would  not  his  own  People  be  led  into  wrong  Notions 
"  by  fuch  univerfal  Afl'ertions  ?  I  cannot  therefore  but  think,  that 
*'  this  Solution  given  by  Mr.  Warburton  is  not  only  not  fufficiently 
"  -well  grounded,  but  that  it  has  no  Foundation  at  all,  viz.  that  the 
"  Pfilmift,  and  the  Son  of  David,  fpoke  of  their  Pagan  Neighbours^ 
**  and  not  of  the  Jeivs,  when  they  exprefled  themfelves  fo  ftrongly 
*'  abo'Jt  the  Profperity  of  the  Wicked  and  the  Misfortune  of  good 

"  Men." 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  511 

**  Men  *."  I  now  begin  to  think,  he  had  Ibmc  reafon  to  lament, 
that  a  right  good  Critical  and  Gramviatical  Comment  has  never  yet 
been  wrote  upon  the  Bible  ■\,  Till  then  I  fhall  beg  leave  to  funnly 
his  Wants  with  a  (hort  Account  of  the  general  Plan  and  Purpofe 
of  this  famous  Book.  It  is  a  Philofophical  Enquiry  into  the  C6/(/' 
Good  or  Summum  Bonum,  fo  univerfal  a  Subject  of  Difpute,  amongfl: 
the  Ancient  Sages ;  and  managed  much  in  their  way ;  /.  e.  chiefly 
employed  in  detecting  the  falfe  Notions  of  Happinefs.  And  that  it 
was  not  unufual  for  Solomon  to  perfonate  the  Garb  and  Manners  of 
the  Gentile  Sages  we  underfland  by  Jofephus,  in  the  Story  he  tells 
of  Solomon  fending  Riddles  to  the  King  of  Tyre  as  Tryals  of  the 
Abilities  of  his  wife  Men  ;  whofe  Sagacity,  at  that  time,  lay  chief- 
ly, as  we  find  by  Herodotus,  towards  fuch  kind  of  decyphcring. 

This  alone  is  fufficient  to  fliew  us,  that  the  facred  Writer  ad- 
drellld  himfelf  to  his  Countrymen,  not  fo  much  under  the  Idea  of 
a  felefted  Nation,  as  to  Part  of  the  Poflerity  of //^(2/;;  and  of  the 
human  Race  at  large.  Otherwife,  to  what  Purpofe  was  this  Philo- 
fophical  Inquiry  ?  For  as  the  Chofen  People,  their  Law  expref^ly 
pointed  out,  and  led  xhem  direclly  to,  xhc  fupreme  good:  Which, 
indeed,  the  Sacred  Writer,  at  laft  ends  with  :  And  he  could  do  no 
other,  both  as  he  was  a  J^u',  and  as  he  addrefled  himfelf  to  his 
Countrymen,  neither  of  whom  could  long  diveft  themfelves  of  their 
peculiar  Charader.  Let  us  hear  the  Couclujion  of  the  whole  Matter 
(fays  he)  ;  Fear  God  and  keep  his  Commandments,  far  this  is  the  whole 
Duty  of  Man  J. 

But  to  be  a  little  more  particular.  The  Book  opens  in  this  man- 
ner ; — P^anity  of  Vanities,  all  is  Vanity.  What  Projit  has  a  Man  of 
all  his  Labour  which  he  taketh  under  the  Sun  ? — All  Ihings  are  full  of 
Labour.  Man  cannot  utter  it  :  The  Eye  is'  not  fatisfied  with  feing, 
nor  the  Ear  filled  with  heari?ig.     The  thing  that  hath  been  is  that. 

*  Examination  of  Mr.  W's  Account,  p.  195,   196. 

■f  Piincip.  uiid  Connex.  of  Nat.  and  Rev.  Relig.  p.  217. 

J  Chap,  xii,  13. 

uhic/j' 


513  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

ivhichjijall  be — and  there  is  no  ncv)  thing  under  the  Sun.  Is  there 
iiuy  thing  -whereof  it  may  he  f aid.  See  this  is  new  ? — There  is  no  Re- 
tnanbranee  of  former  things  ;  neither  fhall  there  be  any  Remembrance  of 
things  that  are  to  come,  ivith  thoje  that  Jhall  come  after*  f  The 
rropofitions  are  here  all  general ;  and  plainly  relative  to  Mankind 
nt  large  :  For  fome  of  them  are  not  true  with  refpe£t  to  the  chofeu 
Nation  ;  fuch  as  the  Aflertion  that  nothing  was  new  under  the  Sun, 
l^c.  Bat  the  following  Words  naore  exprefsly  declare  his  Meaning 
to  be  general,  Jind  I  gave  my  Heart  to  feek  and  fear  ch  out  by  Wifdom, 
concerning  all  things  that  are  done  under  Heaven — /  have  feen  all  the 
V/orks  that  are  done  under  the  Sun  +.  In  the  second  Chapter  he  flill 
more  profeffedly  aflumes  the  Charafler  of  an  ancient  Sage  ;  and  in- 
quires whether  happinefs  be  to  be  found  in  Mirth  and  Jollity ;  in 
Magnificence ;  in  Luxury  ;  in  Wealth  ;  in  Power,  or  in  Wifdom. 
All,  but  the  Jaft,  he  gives  up.  This  indeed  had  fome  Pretenfions 
to  it  :  For  he  found  Wijdom  exceeded  Folly  as  far  as  Light  exceedeth 
Darknefs  %.  Yet,  wlien  he  obferved  that  the  fame  thing  happened 
loth  to  the  Fool  and  the  Wife  §  ;  he  rejefted  this  likewife  with  the 
reft:  And,  now  floundering  deeper  and  deeper  in  Ki's,  Philojbphical 
Enqulrieo,  he  fmks  at  laft  into  grofs  Epicurifm,  There  is  nothing 
letter  for  a  Man,  than  that  he fould  eat  and  drink  ^,  ^c.  But  then 
adding,  and  of  fuch  good  vjho  can  enjoy  more  than  I**  f  This  recalls 
his  real  Charader,  and  affords  him  an  Opportunity  of  ending  the 
Enquiry  in  a  decent  manner,  For  God  give th  to  a  Man  that  is  good  in 
his  Sight,  Vf^ifdom,  and  Knowledge,  and  Joy,  but  to  the  Sinner  he 
giveth  Travel -^^i  &c.  Which,  was  done  with  the  fineft  Addrefs  ; 
and  prevented  what  he  had  faid  jufl:  before,  in  his  perfonated  Cha- 
ra<fler,  from  giving  Scandal,  or  being  mifunderftood.  Let  me  ob- 
ferve  too,  that  there  is  no  way  of  reconciling  this  laft  Verfe  with 
the  14th,  where  he  declares,  ihat  one  Event  happeneth  to  all,  than 
by  fuppofing,  he  there  fpoke  of  the  State  of  Mankind  in  general ; 

•  Chap.  i.  2—12.  t  lb.  13,  14.  \  Chap.  ii.   13.  §    Ver.  14. 

g  Ver.  li,.  **  Vcr.  25.  j-f  Ver.  26. 

and 


OCCASIONAL   REFLECTIONS.  5,3 

and  here  of  the  Jewijlj  Nation  m  particular.  On  this  Principle, 
feveral  other  contradictory  Paflagcs,  to  the  fame  Purpofe,  muft 
needs  be  Interpreted.  In  the  third  Chapter,  having  relumed  hi» 
perfonated  Charader,  he  fecks  for  Happincfs,  and  hnds  nothing 
but  Vanity,  in  the  natural  Conflitution  of  things.  In  the  fourth 
Chapter,  he  feeks  it,  and  finds  the  fame,  in  the  moral  Confatuiion 
of  things.  And  here  he,  all  along,  fpeaks  of  Mankind  in  general. 
/  have  feen  the  Travel  which  God  hath  given  to  the  Sons  of  Men,  ia 
he  exercifed  in  if.  He  hath  made  every  thing  beautiful  in  his  Time : 
alfo  he  hath  Jet  the  IVorld  in  their  Heart  *. — Nay,  there  arc  feme 
Places  where  his  Thought  mufl  be  confined  to  other  Countries,  as 
where  he  fays,  chap.  vi.  ver.  2.  A  Man  to  ivhom  God  hath  given 
Riches,  Wealth,  and  Honour — yet  Gad  giveih  him  not  Poiver  to  eat 
thereof,  hut  a  Stranger  eateth  it.  This  could  not  happen  under 
Solomon  in  the  Land  of  Judaa,  when  Inheritances  never  went  out 
of  the  Twelve  Tribes.  Again,  And  tnoreover  I faw  under  the  Sun 
the  Place  of  Judgment  that  Wickednefs  was  there,  and  the  Place  of 
Kighteoufncfs  that  Iniquity  was  there  -f-.  Are  we  to  think  that  Solo- 
mon was  afraid  of  faying,  this  was  in  Judaa,  which  he  governed 
abfolutely ;  and  fo  difgulfed  his  Exprefiion  to  make  us  believe  he 
meant  it  of  the  World  at  large  ?  Or  could  the  Civil  Adminlftra- 
tion  of  the  Land,  which  he  governed  with  fo  much  VVifdom  and 
Equity,  be  in  the  mlferable  Condition  here  defcribed  ?  The  Fourth 
Chapter  begins — So  I  returned  and  confidered  all  the  Oppreffions  that 
are  done  under  the  Sun, — Returned  I  from  whence  ?  From  a  Con- 
templation of  the  Jiatural  State  of  Things  (fpoken  of  in  the  pre- 
ceding Chapter)  to  the  moral,  every  where  over  the  whole  Face  of 
the  habitable  Globe  ; — all  the  Oppreffions  that  are  done  under  the  Sun. 
But  the  13th  and  14th  Verfes  certainly  allude  to  fome  fa£l  out  of 
Judaea.  Better  is  a  poor  and  wife  Child  than  an  old  andfooli/lj  Kitig: 
For  out  of  Prifon  he  comet h  to  reign  ;  whereas  alf  he  that  is  born  in 
his  Kingdom  becometh  poor.     In  the  fame  manner  we  muft  interpret 

*  Chap.  iii.  10,  II.  t  Ver.  i6. 

Vol.  VI.  U  u  u  the 


5:4        REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

the  14th  and  15th  Verfes  of  the  ixth  Chapter  ;  and  the  3th,  6th, 
and  7th  Verfes  of  the  xtli  Chapter.  From  hence,  that  is,  from 
the  End  of  the  Fourth  Chapter,  to  the  Conclufion  of  the  Book,  the 
facred  Writer  employs  himfelf  in  mlfccllaneous  Refle£lions  illuf- 
trating  and  fupporting  his  main  Queftlon  :  partly  ahftradled,  in  his 
afllimed  Ciiaradler  of  Sage;  and  partly  praSiical  and  d'tdadiic^  \\\ 
his  Chara(5ler  oi  Preacher :  Till  he  comes  to  the  Conclufion  of  his 
Enquiry  after  Happinefs,  which  he  places  in  God.  Remember  thy 
Creator,  ^c.  And  in  this  Part,  agreeable  to  the  Character  in  which 
he  fpeaks,  he  fometimes  aflerts  an  equal  Providence,  and  fometimes 
an  unequal.  As  where  he  fays,  in  behalf  of  the  firfl — //  is  good 
that  ihoujkouldji  t.ike  hold  of  ihh^  yea  alfo  from  this  withdrmv  not 
thine  Hand,  for  he  that  fear  eth  God  fh  all  co  we.  forth  of  them  all^, 
Whcfo  keepeih  the  Commandments  fiall  feel  no  evil  thing  •\. — 
But  it  fhallnot  be  well  with  the  Wicked,  neither  fhall  he  prolong  his 
Days,  which  are  as  a  Shadow,  becaufe  hefeareth  not  before  God+. — 
On  the  contrary  he  fays,  in  the  very  following  Verfe  :  There  is  a 
Vanity  'which  is  done  upon  the  Earth,  that  there  be  jufl  Men  unto  whom- 
it  happeneth  according  to  the  Work  of  the  (Vicked:  Again,  there  be- 
wicked  Men  to  whom  it  happeneth  according  to  the  Work  of  the  Righ- 
teous §.  This  is  worthy  our  Obfervation.  When,  in  the  preced- 
ing Verfe,  he  had  afferted  an  equal  Providence  ;  and  by  the  Words, 
prolong  his  Days,  marked  it  to  be  fuch  a  one  as  we  are  told  in  the 
Law,  was  adminiflred  over  the  Land  of  Judaea ;  when  he  comes 
to  fpeak  in  this  Verfe  of  an  unequal  Providence,  he  as  plainly  inti- 
mates that  he  meant  it  in  the  World  at  large,  by  the  introdudory 
Expreflion  of,  Thre  is  a  Vanity  which  is  done  upon  the  Earth. 

But,  how  the  Book  of  Ecchfafes  came  to  be  written  ;  and  hov^r 
it  came  to  be  cafl  into  this  Form ;  though  fuch  an  Enquiry  might 
tend  to  illuftrate  and  fupport  our  Interpretation  ;  I  fhall  not  at  pre- 
fent,  nor,  perhaps,  ever  hereafter,  think  fit  to  inform  our  Exami- 
ner.    What  has  been  already  faid  is  more  than  fufficient  to  juftify 

*  Chap.vii.  18.  t  Chap.  viii.  5.  j  Vcr.  13.  §  Ver.  14. 

my 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  515 

my  Aflertion,  That  when  the  TFriter  of  Ecclefiafles  //li-^/^v  of  the  In- 
equality of  Providence,  he  means  that  State  of  it  dviongjl  bis  Pagan 
Neighbours: — The  Argument  {lands  thus  ;  There  are  fcvcral  Places 
in  the  Book  of  EccIefaJJcs  where  an  equal  Providence  is  afllrted  ; 
ieveral,  where  an  unequal.  Thefe  can  be  only  reconciled  by  fup- 
pofing,  that,  in  the  firfl  Cafe,  he  fpeaks  of  it  as  adminiftrcd  in  tlie 
Land  of  Judaa ;  in  the  fecond,  as  in  the  World  at  large.  The 
Suppoftion  is  jufllfied  in  this  manner:  i.  by  ftiewing,  that  the 
very  Expreflion,  in  both  Cafes,  fupports  this  Diflin£lion  :  2.  tint 
the  Author  fometimes  fpeaks  in  the  perfonated  Charader  of  a  Sage 
or  Philofophic  Enquirer  after  Truth  ;  in  which,  he  traiifports  liim- 
felf  into  the  World  at  large  :  Sometimes,  in  his  own  Charafler  of 
a  Preacher,  where  he  confines  himfelf  to  thtjewijh  People. — But 
to  go  on  now  with  our  Examiner. 

VIII. 

"  Mr.  IVarhurton  (fays  he)  has  given  us  a  fecond  Solution  of 
"  this  Difficulty,  no  better,  I  think,  than  the  former.  IVe  foms- 
*'  times  find  particular  Men  complaining  of  Inequalities  in  Events, 
♦'  which  were  indeed  the  Effects  of  a  mojl  equal  Providence.  Such  as 
♦'  the  Punijlment  of  Poflerityfor  the  Crimes  of  their  Eorefahers,  and 
«'  of  SubjeBs  for  their  Kings.  Thefe  are  indeed  remarkable  Inftanccs 
"  of  an  extraordinary  equal  Providence,  where  no  Transgressor 

"  COULD  ESCAPE  PuNISHMENT,   NOR  GOOD  MaN  ESCAPE  REWARD, 

«'  to  tell  us  of  tranfgreffing  Forefathers  efcaping,  and  their  inno- 
"  CENT  Children  being  punished  ;  of  wicked  Kings  under  no 
•*  Misfortunes,  and  innocent  Subje^s  fuffering  on  their  Account*!" 
And  thus  he  goes  on,  repeating  his  -st^utcv  ^tZ^og,  for  eigiit  Pages 
together.  For  now  this  Myjlery  of  Iniquity  begins  to  work.  He 
mufl  be  content  therefore  to  be  reminded  (for  the  Jf  31 E  S)  C 
C31S19C)  that  he  here  ftands  charged  with  putting  a  false 
Senfe  upon,  no  Tranfgrejfor  efcaping  Punifiment^  &c.  by  which  alone 

*  Exam,  of  Mr. /^'j  Account,  p.  196,    197. 

U  u  u  2  his 


,;,6  Tx  EM  ARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

his  Argument  Is  fupported.  And  we  {hall  have  frequent  occafion, 
as  wc  .'go  along,  to  repeat  his  Crime,  and  let  this  black  Mark  upon 
him.  But  fo  grofs  a  Mifreprefentation  does  not  ftand  Tingle.  It  is 
accompanied  with  another  as  grofs,  which,  however,  feems  rather 
to  be  the  Fault  of  his'Underflanding.  He  exprefsly  reprefents  me 
as  affirming,  that,  by  the  Law  of  God,  Innocent  Children 
WERE  PUNISHED  Fou  THEIR  GUILTY  PARENTS;  in  a  manner  that 
cannot  be  reconciled  to  Ju/iice,  or  Goodnefs,  or  Impartiality  in  an  ex- 
traordinary Providence  *.  An  atrocious  Accufation  1  and  without  a 
Poffibility  of  Proof.  For  in  this  Difcourfe,  which  our  Author  re- 
fers to,  and  underftands  not,  1  had  (hewn,  i.  That  where  the  Pof- 
terity  of  guilty  Parents  were  deprived  of  any  of  their  natural  un- 
conditioned Rights  for  their  Parents'  Crimes,  There,  the  Pofterity 
were  not  innocent.  Which,  I  obferved,  might  be  undcrftood,  from 
the  Law  itfelf ;  where,  although  God  allowed  capital  PuniJJment  to 
be  inf idled  for  Lefe  Majefty  on  the  Perfon  of  the  Offender,  by  the  dele- 
gated Adminijlration  of  the  Law  ;  yet  concerning  his  Family  or  Pofte- 
rity  he  referred  the  Inquifition  to  himfelf;  and  exprefsly  forbad  the 
Magfrate  to  meddle  with  it  in  the  common  Courfe  of  Jujlice  -f.  For 
Avhy  was  the  Magiftrate  forbid  to  imitate  God's  Method  of  punish- 
ing, but  becaufe  no  PowciTefs  than  omnifclent  could,  in  all  Cafes, 
keep  clear  of  Injuftlce  in  fuch  a  Pcrquifition?  But  I  obferved  fur^ 
ther,  that  God  had  exprefsly  declared  why  he  referved  this  Method 
of  Punllhment  to  himfelf,  in  the  Place  where  he  informs  us,  how, 
or  in  what  manner,  he  viras  pleafed  to  adminifter  it.  Tour  Iniquities 
(fays  he)  and  the  Iniquities  of  your  Fathers  together  |,  G?c.  2.  I  had 
fhewn,  that  where  an  innocent  Pofterity  fufFered  for  the  Crimes  of 
guilty  Parents,  It  was  only  in  the  Deprivation  of  their  Civil  Condi- 
tional Rights.  For  the  Ifraelites,  as  Scripture  informs  us,  were  fup- 
ported in  fudtea  by  an  extraordinary  Adminiftration  of  Provi- 
dence ;  the  Confequence  of  which  were  great  temporal  Bleflings 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  IV^i  Account,  p.  197. 

t  Divine  Legat.  Vol.  II.  p.  458.     [Vol.  III.   p.  140.  Ed.  410.] 

X  \h.  Ixv.  7. 

given 


OCCASION  AL    REFLECTIONS.       517 

given  them  on  Condition  ;  and  to  which  they  had  no  natural 
Claim.  Nothing  therefore  could  be  more  equitable  than,  on  the 
Violation  of  that  Condition,  to  withdraw  thofe  extraordinary  Bid", 
fings  from  a  Father  thus  offending.  To  confirm  which,  I  Ihewcd, 
that  it  exaftly  correfponded  with  the  Pratflice  of  all  States,  in  At- 
taint of  Blood  and  Confifcation  *."  And  now,  was  it  pofliblc  for 
the  moft  arrant  Anfwerer  by  Profejion,  had  he  underftood  what 
was  faid,  to  charge  me  with  holding,  that  by  the  Law  of  God, 
Innocent  Children  were  funijhed  for  their  guilty- Parents  in  a  manner 
that  ca?tnot  be  reconciled  to  y.ujice,  or  Goodnefs,  or  Impartiality  in  an 
extraordinary  Providence?  Not  but  we  muft  think  that  he  had 
read  that  DilTertation.  For  there  is  fcarce  any  Part  of  it  which, 
under  this  Head,  he  does  not  quote  :  but  in  fo  abfurd  a  manner,, 
and  to  fo  abfurd  Purpofes,  as  evidently  fhew,  that  he  underftood  not 
what  he  read.     Of  which  take  the  following  Inflances. 

To  prove  that  the  Importance  of  the  Doftrine  of  a  Future  State 
was  well  underflood  by  Mofes,  1  fhew,  that  the  Law  of  punijlnng 
the  hiiquities  of  the  Fathers  upon  the  Children,  was  n  Provifion  op- 
pofed  to  the  inconvenient  Confequences  of  its  OmiJJion^  For  that 
the  Violence  of  irregular  Paffions  would  make  fome  Ibrtof  Men,  of 
flronger  Complexions,  fuperior  to  all  the  Fear  of  perfonal  temporal 
Evil.  To  lay  hold  therefore  of  thefe,  and  to  gain  a  due  afcendant 
over  the  moft  determined,  the  Punishments,  in  this  Inftitution,  arc 
extended  to  the  Pojierity  of  wicked  Men  ;  %vhich  the  inftindive 
fondnefs  of  Parents  for  their  OfF-fpring  would  make  terrible,  even 
to  thofe  who  had  hardened  themfelves  into  an  Infenfibility  of  per- 
gonal Punishment  -j-.  Now  this.  Dr.  Sykes,  exprefsly  reprcfcnts  as 
faid  to  "  get  rid  of  this  Difficulty,  viz.  How  innocent  Children 
**  being  made  to  fuffer  for  their  finning  Parents  can  be  coniillcnt 
*'  with  the  Law  of  an  equal  Providence  |."  This  is  fcarce  indeed 
to  be  believed,  though  we  fee  his  end  in  his  Prevarication.  For  now 

*  Divine  Legat.  vol.11,  p.  459.    [Vol.  III.  p.  141.   Ed.  410.] 
t  Ibid.  p.  454.     [Vol.  III.  p.  137.  Ed.  4to.] 
\  Exam,  of  Mr.  tV's  Account,  i^c  p.  199. 

the 


5.3  UEMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

ihc  Aufwcr  conies  out  cafy  in  a  mere  denial. — "This  is  not  con- 
fiftetit  with  the  Law  of  an  equal  Providence."  Whereas  had  he 
told  the  Reader  Truth  concerning  my  Purpofe,  in  the  Obfervation, 
then,  in  order  to  anfwer  it,  he  muft  have  proved,  that  the  Punifti- 
ment  on  the  Pofterity  of  a  wicked  Man  did  not  lay  hold  of  his  in- 
Aintflive  Paflions ;  which,  1  fuppofe,  would  have  not  been  fo  eafy. 
Jjut  indeed  I  am  always  ready  to  fufpeft,  that  I  attribute  more  to 
Dcfign  in  this  Writer,  than  I  ought.  And,  in  his  Repetition 
of  this  falfe  Reprefentation,  there  is  fomething  fo  natural,  that  I 
am  almoft  ready  to  acquit  him  of  all  PraSlice. — "  It  is  certain  (fays 
"  be)  the  inflindive  Fondnefs  of  Parents  will  reftrain,  ^c. — But 
'*  this  is  NOT  THE  Case  in  hand.  The  previous  Supposition  is, 
"  that  no  Tranfgrejfor  is  to  efcape  PuniJJjment,  &c.  The  Question 
"  THEN  IS,  upon  this  Suppofition,  how  a  guilty  Parent's  Crimes  can 
"  be  vijited  upon  his  innocent  Children  *."  For  is  it  poffible  he  fliould 
knowingly  venture  the  being  detected  in  fo  grofs  a  Mifreprefenta- 
tion  by  any  one  who  will  but  turn  to  Page  454+5  of  the  Second 
Edition  of  the  Second  Volume  of  The  Divine  Legation  ? 

His  next  Obfervation  colleds  his  fcattered  Abfurdities  together ; 
and  fo  frees  us  at  once  from  the  trouble  of  any  further  Quotations 
from  him  on  this  Head. 

He  fays,  the  Author  of  The  Divine  Legation  goes  on  and  obferves 
•'  that  this  Puni/Iment  [of  vifiting  the  Iniquities  of  Fathers  upon 
"  Children]  was  only  to  fupply  the  want  of  a  Future  State.  But 
"  how  will  this  extraordinary  Oeconomy  supply  this  want  ?  The 
*'  Children  at  prefent  fufFer  for  their  Parents  Crimes  ;  and  are  fup- 
♦'  pofed  to  be  punifhed  when  they  have  no  guilt.  Is  not  this  a 
**  plain  hOi  of  Hardship  ?  And  if  there  be  no  future  State  or 
•'  Compenfation  made,  the  Hardfhip  done  muft  continue  for  ever 
"  a  Hardfliip  on  the  unhappy  Sufferer  J."      i.  The  Queftion  is, 

♦  Examination  of  Mr.  W's  Account,  Sec.  p.  201. 

+   Ed.  4to.  \''ol.  III.  p.  136,  137. 

X  Exam,  of  Mr.  Ws  Account,  Sec.   p,  202,  303, 

whether 


OCCASIONAL  REFLECTIONS.  5:9 

whether  this  Law  ofpunifl^ing,  was  a  supply  to  the  want  of  a 
future  State  ?  If  it  laid  hold  of  the  Pafiions,  as  he  owns  above  it 
did,  it  certainly  was  a  supply.  However,  he  will  here  prove  it 
was  none.  Andliow?  Becaufe  it  was  a  Hardship.  2.  He  fup- 
pofes  that  when  Children  were  punifhed,  in  the  proper  Scnfe  of 
the  Word,  they  were  innocent,  which  is  abfolutely  faUb,  for  then 
they  were  always  guilty.  When  the  innoccnl  were  affedled  by  their 
Parents'  Crimes,  it  was  by  the  deprivation  of  Benefits,  in  their  Na- 
ture forfeitable.  3.  He  kippofes,  that  if  Mufes  taught  no  future 
State,  it  would  then  follow  that  tliere  was  none. — Which  puts 
me  in  Mind  of  the  fame  fort  of  Confutation  which  the/r/?  Volume  of 
7be  Divine  Legation  underwent.  Where  fpeaking  of  the  true 
Foundation  of  Morality,  I  obferved,  (to  the  difcredit  of  Atheifm, 
which  I  thought  deftrudive  of  Society)  that  an  Atheift  could  not, 
on  his  Principles,  find  any  grounds  of  Moral  Obligation.  Hence  it 
was  inferred  that,  on  my  reafoning,  an  Atheift,  who  tranfgrefled 
the  Rule  of  Right,  would  not  deferve  Punifhmeut.  A  Conclufion 
founded  in  the  fame  Logic  with  our  learned  Doclor's,  that,  if  an 
Atheift  thought  there  were  no  God,  then  there  was  none.  Other- 
wife,  how  the  right  Confequences  drawn  by  him,  from  Premiffes 
which  he  never  could  have  embraced  but  through  a  criminal  Negli- 
gence or  Partiality,  ftiould  be  faultlefs,  I  then  had  not,  nor  ytC 
have  Penetration  enough  to  difcover*. 

But  he  ends  his  falfe  reafoning  on  this  Subjeift,  as  all  falfe  rea- 
foning  muft  end,  when  drawn  out  to  that  comfortable  length  witli 
which  Dr.  Sykes  always  regales  his  Reader,  in  compleat  unintel- 
leclual  Abfurdity.     *'  Mr.  Warburton  (fays  he  J  had  before   him  the 

*  I  would  aot  here  be  fiippofed  to  hint  at  a  very  ingenious  Writer,  who  fccms  to 
have  fallen  into  this  miftake,  in  a  Difcourfe  printed  in  the  IVorh  of  the  learned  for  Augufc 
J  743,  intituled,  Remar\s  upon  fame  IVrlten  concenritig  the  Fountkuion  of  Moral  Obligation. 
A  Writer  by  no  Means  to  be  ranked  with  the  Riffraff  now  upon  my  Hands.  The  Dif- 
courfe here  mentioned  being  one  of  the  mod  polite,  candid,  rational  Performances,  I 
ever  faw  on  that  Side  the  Quertion  ;  and  enlightened  with  a  Spirit  of  fublimc  and  un- 
affefted  Piety,  fuperior  to  all  Reafoning. 

"  Praflicc 


3ao  REMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

<'  Praaice  of  Modern  Slates  in  attaint  of  Bloc d  and  Conffcation,  and 
*'  lie  allows  this  to  be  done  with  the  hlghefl:  Equity  :  and  Tays, 
♦'  thus  it  mujl  needs  be  under  a  Theocracy ;  God  fupported  the  Ifrae- 
•'  lites  in  Judea  by  an  extraordinary  Adminijlration  of  his  Providence: 
♦*  The  Confcqucnce  of  -which  was  great  temporal  Blcliings  given  them 
"  on  Condition  and  to  -which  they  had  no  natural  Claim.  Cotdd  any 
"  thino^  be  more  equitable,  than  on  the  Violation  of  that  Condition  to 
"  ■withdra'w  thofe  extraordinary  Bhjfings  from  the  Children  of  a  Father 
<'  thus  ojfending?  p.  457,  458  «. 

"  It  is  true,  that  the  Jews  had  no  natural  Claim  to  great  tem- 
«'  poral  Bleflings.  But  then  they  had  a  Claim  to  them  from  exprefs 
"  Promife  ;  which  Is  as  good  a  Claim  in  the  prefent  Cafe  as  any 
"  natural  Claim  whatever.  They  had  this  Claim  indeed  on  Condi- 
"  tion  ;  A  Condition  of  certain  Behaviour,  which  if  they  complied 
•'  with,  no  Obferver  was  to  mifs  his  Reward.  The  Cafe  is  put  of 
*'  an  innocent  Child  fufFering  on  account  of  a  guilty  Father.  The 
*'  innocent  Child  has  a  right  to  temporal  Bleffmgs  by  virtue  of  ex- 
"  prefs  Promife  ;  and  no  Sin  of  the  Father  can  deprive  him  of  thefe 
"  Bleflings  without  a  Violation  of  the  Covenant :  For  if  it  would, 
*'  an  Obferver  of  the  Law  would  mifs  his  Reward.  It  would  there- 
"  fore  in  the  prefent  Cafe  be  fo  far  from  equitable  to  withdraw  thofe 
*'  extraordinary  Blefjings  from  the  Children  of  an  of  hiding  Parenty 
"  that  it  would  be  a  dire£l  Violation  of  Contraft  and  Engagement: 
"  It  would  be  a  Breach  of  Promife  in  God,  and  confequently  a  thing 
*'  impolfible  in  itfelf  t."  What  is  it  that  our  Anfvverer  drives  at  ? 
He  grants  the  Jews  had  no  natural  Claim  to  great  temporal  Blefl- 
ings. He  grants,  thefe  were  given  on  condition  of  Obedience.  He 
grants,  that  a  Punifliment  was  denounced  on  Poflerity  for  the 
Crimes  of  their  Parents.  Thefe  three  things  he  grants.  Yet  he 
affirms  "  that  it  would  be  fo  far  from  equitable  to  withdraw  thofe 
*'  extraordinary  Bleffings  from  the  Children  of  an  offending  Parent, 

*  Ed.  4to,  vol.  m.  p.  idi. 

t  Exam,  of  Mr.  fT's  Account,  &c.    p.  203,  204«. 

«  that 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  521 

«  that  it  would  be  a  direft  Violation  of  Coiitrni5V,  and  Engagement." 
And  does  not  this  great  Legift  fee,  that  a  conditional  Grant,  when 
conveyed  through  Parents  to  Children,  if  forfeited  by  tlie  Parent, 
does  not  defcend,  of  right,  to  the  Children  ;  and  confequently, 
may  at  any  time,  with  the  utmofl:  juftice,  be  refumed  ?  For  when 
a  thing  is  given  to  Parents  and  their  Pofterity,  on  Condition  of 
Obedience  ;  and,  at  the  fame  time,  the  Punifliment  of  offending 
Parents  threatened  on  their  Pofterity,  is  not  the  Parents'  good  Be- 
haviour part  of  the  Condition  r  What  is  it  then,  that  could  thus 
confound  the  Underftanding  of  our  learned  Do£lor  ?  His  own  fo- 
phiftical  Prevarications.  Which  generally  reward  their  Inventors 
as  the  Devil  does  a  Witch,  after  having  ferved  them  in  many  jug- 
gling Tricks,  at  length  draws  them  into  a  Rope,  and  there  leaves 
them.  I  had  laid  that  an  innocent  Pojierity  were  fometimes  punijloed 
for  the  Crimes  of  their  wicked  Fathers.  I  had  like  wife  faid  that  no 
^ranfgrejj'or  efcaped  Funifjinent^  7ior  any  Obferver  of  the  Law  mffcd 
his  Reward.  Now,  inftead  of  interpreting  the  firll  Propofitlon  as  I 
explained  it,  in  the  very  Place  where  I  ufed  it,  to  (ignify  no  more 
than  that  an  innocent  Pofterity  were  deprived  of  civil  Bleflings 
which  their  Fathers  had  legally  forfeited ;  he  reprefents  me  as  fay- 
ing, that  by  the  Law  of  God,  "  innocent  Children  were  poninud 
*'  for  their  guilty  Parents  in  a  manner  that  cannot  be  reconciled  to 
"  Juftlce  or  Goodnefs  or  Impartiality  in  an  extraordinary  Provi- 
*'  dence  *."  Inftead  of  interpreting  the  fccond  Propofitlon  in  the 
fenfe  of  the  Apoftle,  from  whence  I  borrowed  the  Expreflion,  who 
fays  that  under  the  fewifi  Oeconomy  every  TranfgreJJion  and  Dif- 
obedience  received  a  jiijl  Recompence  and  Reward ^  he  will  have  it  to 
be  my  Meaning  that  no  one  fingle  Perfon,  without  Exception, 
ever  efcaped  Punifhment,  or  ever  mifled  his  Reward  :  Tijough,  as 
I  have  fliewn,  it  contradidls  all  Logical  Rules  of  Interpretation. 
And  now  fee  what  comes  of  it.  By  applying  thefe  Prevarications 
to  the  place  in  Queftion,  he  argues  in  fuch  a  manner  as  if  he  never 

*  An  Examination  of  Mr.  V/arburton's  Account,  p,  197. 

Vol.  VI.  X  X  X  had 


522  REiMARKS    ON     SEVERAL 

had  the  lead  Conception  of  what  others  call  the  common  Princi- 
ples of  Scnfe  or  Judice. 

XIII. 

My  "  third  Solution  of  the  Difficulty  (he  tells  us)  ftaiids  thus, 
"  admitting  the  Reality  of  an  equal  Providence  to  Particulars,  in  the 
•'  Hebrew  States  the  Adminijlration  of  it  viufl  needs  be  attended  ivilh 
'■'■  fuch  Circuwjiances  as  fometimes  to  occafwn  thofe  Obfervatiom  of  Inc- 
"  qualiiy,  u  e.  in  plain  Terms,  an  equal  Providence  must  needs 
*'  be  unequal.  Is  not  this  a  plain  Acknowledgment,  that  an  equal 
*♦  Providence  cannot  be  adminiftred  at  all  fince  it  mud:  needs  be 
"  attended  with  fuch  Circumftances  as  muft  appear  unequal*  :" — 
I  fay,  an  equal  Providence  muft  needs  he  attended  with  fuch  Circum- 
fiances  as  to  occafon  Men's  Objervalions  of  Inequality.  This  Propo- 
fition  he  affirms  is,  in  plain  Terms,  equivalent  to  this  other,  that 
an  unequal  Providence  vniji  needs  be  unequal.  Which  may  perhaps 
be  true  when  he  has  proved  thefe  three  Points  :  i.  That  his  Senfe 
of«o  Tranfgrejfor  efcapingPunifment  is  no  Prevarication.  2.  That 
fome  Inequalities,  in  an  equal  Providence,  is  the  fame  thing  as  the 
common  Providence.  3.  That  the  Obfervations  of  Men  muft  needs 
be  infallible.  But  to  fficw  his  anfwer  in  its  full  fhame,  let  us  con- 
fider  only  the  laft  of  them.  The  Reader  may  take  notice  that  the 
Words,  immediately  preceding  thefe,  [of  Men's  Obfervations  of 
Inequality']  fpeak  of  the  Falfl.ood  of  fuch  Obfervations,  even  in  the 
Cafe  of  David  himfelf.  Who  owned  that  he  was  fometimes  too  hafy 
in  judging  of  thefe  Matters.  And  that  he  underfosd  not  the  courfe 
of  God's  Jujlice  till  he  had  confdered  the  ivajy  in  which  an  equal 
Providence  mufl  necejfarily  be  adminijlred  under  a  Theocracy  and  the 
Conjequences  of  fuch  an  Adminijlration  -j-.  Having  faid  this,  I  join  it 
to  the  Propofition  in  Queftion,  by  the  Conjundion  For  ;  [For  even 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  W^s  Account,  &c.  p.  205, 

t  Div,  Leg.  Vol.  11.  p.  445.     [Vol.  JII.  p.  121.   Ed.  410.] 

admitting"] 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  523 

admitting^  and  refer  to  it  hy  the  Pronoun  tbofe,  \tbofc  Obfcrva- 
i'lons  of  Inequaliiy'].  But  \vc  have  here  to  do  with  a  Do£l:or,  as 
little  like  David  In  his  Piety,  as  his  Senfe :  Who  if  the  Admi- 
iiiftration  of  an  equal  Providence,  under  a  Theocracy,  mufl:  needs 
be  attended  with  the  Appearances  of  Inequality,  will  fliew  that 
God  could  not  adminifler  it  at  all  :  Without  doubt,  upon  this 
Principle,  that  God  either  ought  not,  or  cannot  do,  what  Man, 
with  the  Degree  of  light  God  has  been  pleafed  to  give  him,  can- 
not comprehend.  An  Argument  worthy  this  great  Advocate  for  the 
Light  of  Nature. — But  he  is  not  a  Man  to  be  fcrious  with.  Having 
done  me  the  Honour  of  giving  me  this  Propofition,  that  an  equal 
Providence  mujl  needs  be  unequal;  he  will  then  tell  the  Reader  what 
I  mufl:  needs  infer  from  it. — "  Is  not  this  (fays  he)  a  plain  Ac- 
"  knowledgment  that  an  equal  Providence  cannot  be  admlniflred  at 
"  all,  fince" — Since  what  r  The  Reader  may  Imagine  his  Pre- 
miffes  require  him  to  conclude  thus, — "  Since  it  mufl:  needs  be  at- 
*'  tended  with  fuch  Circumflances  as  occajion  an  unequal  Providence^ 
But  this  would  be  concluding  like  other  Men.  No,  he  fays — 
*'  fince  It  mufl  needs  be  attended  with  fuch  Circumfl:ances  as  to  oc- 
*'  cafion  Men's  Observations  of  Inequality."  And  thus  he  him- 
felf  at  length  betrays  his  own  Sophifl:ry.  The  Truth  is,  it  was  fo 
hardy  In  the  Propofition,  that. he  was  even  afhamed  to  repeat  it  in  the 
Inference.  And  fo  became  the  Dupe,  not  of  his  returning  Honefly, 
but  of  his  deferted  Courage.  Flis  whole  Argument  indeed  is  one 
complicated  Sophifl:ry.  Firfl:,  he  takes  what  is  there  faid  of  Men's 
Obfervations  of  Inequality  to  be  true  Obfervations  ;  whereas,  they 
are  there  faid  to  hzfalfe  ones.  Secondly,  he  makes  them  to  fignify 
that  Men  obferved  an  unequal  Providence  ;  whereas  they  mean  that 
Men  obferved  fome  Inequalities  in  an  equal  Providence:  whicli  (whe- 
ther he  underfl:ands  it  or  no)  Is  a  very  different  thing. 

He  goes  on  thus :  "  But  the  Inflances  he  brings  to  $olve  this 
*'  Difficulty  [namely  the  Appearances  of  Inequality]  are  fo  many 
<'  clear  Proofs  againfl:  the  thing  itfclf  *."    How  unlucky  !    The  In- 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  JVs  Account,   p.  205. 

X  X  X  2  fiances 


524  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

fanccs  I  brought  were  to  (hew  from  whence  the  Difficulty  arofe,  not 
to  folve  it.  But  with  this  Writer,  to  folve  or  to  raife  a  Difficuhy 
is  indeed  much  tlic  fame.  Well,  the  Inflanca  however  are  thefe. 
I.  //  appears  from  the  reafnn  of  the  thing  that  this  Adminif  ration 
did  not  begin  to  be  exerted  in  particular  Cafes,  ''till  the  civil  Laws 
of  the  Republic  had  failed  of  their  Efficacy.  Thus  where  any  Crime, 
as  for  In/ianccy  Dfobediencc  to  Parents,  was  public,  //  became  the  Ob- 
jetl  of  the  civilTribunal,  and  is  accordingly  ordered  to  be  punifed  by 
the  Judge*.  But  when  private  and  fecret,  then  it  became  the  Ob- 
je^  of  Divine  Vengeance  f.  Now  the  Confequence  of  this  was,  that 
when  the  Laws  were  remijjly  or  corruptly  adminijired,  good  and  ill 
•would  fomeiimes  happen  unequally  to  Men.  For  we  are  not  to  fuppofc 
that  Providence  in  this  cafe  generally  interfered,  *till  the  corrupt  admi- 
nijlration  itfelf  when  ripe  for  Vengeance,  had  been  firf  puniped.  z.  In 
this  extraordinary  Adminijlration,  one  Part  of  the  wicked  was  fome- 
timesfufered  as  a  Scourge  to  the  other.  3.  The  extraordifjary  Prov!^ 
dence  to  the. State  might  fometirnes  clafj  with  that  to  Particulars,  a« 
in  the  Plague  for  numbering  the  People.  4.  Sometimes  the  extraordi- 
nary Providence  was  fifpended for  a  Seafon  to  bring  on  a  national  Rc' 
pentance :  But  at  the  fame  Time  this  Sufpe?ifon  was  publickly  de- 
nounced \.  And  a  very  fvere  Punifmient  it  was,  as  leaving  a  State, 
which  had  not  the  Sanation  of  a  future  State  of  Reioards  and  Punif:- 
menis,  in  a  very  difconfolate  Condition.  And  this  was  what  occafioned  the 
Complaints  of  the  impatient  Jews  §,  after  they  had  beenfo  long  accuf- 
totned  to  an  extraordinary  Adminijlration  \\. 

Now  what  is  our  Doftor's  Anfwer  to  all  this  ?  Why  ftill  the 
old  Song, — "  If  he  is  obliged  in  Virtue  of  the  Theocracy  to  fee 
"  that  no  Tranfgrejfor  efcapes  Puni/ljment'^*^'.  And  again, — "  becaufe 

*  Exod.  xxi.    15.  and  17. 

f  Deut.  xxvii,  16.  and  Prov.  xxx.  17. 

\  Kaiah  iii.  5.     Chap.  lix.  2.    Chap.  Ixiv.  7. 

§  Kaiah  V.  19.     Jerem.  xvii.  15.     Amos  v.  18.     Zeph.  i.   12.     Malac.  ii.  17, 

II   Divine  Legal.  Vol.  II.  p.  445,  446.   [Vol.  III.  p.  121,  122.  Ed.  4to.] 

♦*  Esam.  of  Mr.  //■"j  Account,  p.  206. 

*'  otherwife, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.        5.5 

*^  otherwlfe,  fome  TranJgreJJors  loould  ejcape  PutilJl-tiLtit  *." — And 
*'  again,  whether  an  extraordinary  Providence  over  Particulars  was 
*«  then  engaged  fo  as  that  no  Tranfgrejj'or  /JjouU  efcape  Punijhment,  no 
"  Obferver  of  the  Law  JlmiU  mifs  prefent  temporal  BIJJings,  is  the 
"  Point  to  be  proved  -}-."  And  again — "  The  great  Point  was  firft 
"  to  have  proved,  that  ever  there  was  fuch  an  extraordinary  Provi- 
*'  dence  to  Particulars  as  that  «o  TranJgreO'or  ever  efcaped  Puni/lj- 
"  mcnt,  nor  did  atiy  Obferver  of  the  haw  m'ljs  bis  prefent  Reward  \y 
This  therefore  being  all  his  Anfwer,  I  had  given  him  his  Re- 
ply before-hand.  And  have  now  nothing  to  do  but  to  arraign  him 
again,  for  a  ^^t^M"^  aCC€)$PlpC  of  putting  ofF  his  falfe 
Ware. 

But  his  Logic  is  fo  very  entertaining,  that  he  will  allow  us  to 
divert  ourfelves  with  it  a  little ;  elpeclally  as  he  has  given  us  fo 
much  leifure,  by  trufling  all  to  one  pitiful  Sophifm.  It  is  where 
he  fays,  "  //  appears  from  the  Reafon  of  the  thing,  that  this  Adnii- 
^^  nlfiratlon  did  not  begin  to  be  exerted  In  particular  Cafes,  till  the  Civil 
"  Laws  of  the  Republic  had  filled  of  their  Efficacy.  Thus,  where  any 
'^  Crime,  as  for  hfiance,  Dfobedlence  to  Parents^  -was  public,  it  be^ 
"  came  the  OhjeSl  of  the  Civil  Tribunal,  and  Is  accordingly  ordered  to 
*■'  be  punlped  by  the  Judge.  But  when  private  andfecret,  then  It  be- 
"  came  the  Objetl  of  divine  Vengeance.  Let  this  be  admitted.  Now,, 
**  fays  Mr.  Warburton,.  the  Confequence  of  this  was,  that  when  the 
"  Laws  were  remifsly  or  corruptly  admlnljlred.  Good  and  III  would 
*■'■  fometlmes  happen  unequally  to  Men. 

*'  On  the  contrary,  I  fay,  that  this  is  no  Confequence  at  all  : 
"  For  upon  Suppofitlon  of  an  extraordinary  Providence,  equally  ad- 
*'  miniftred,  the  guilty  Perfons  ought  to  futFer  by  Divine  Vengeance, 
*'  and  the  corrupt  and  remifs  Maglftrate  too,  as  being  guilty  of  a 
"  Crioie  in  not  doing  his  Duty  §."  Here  we  fee  our  Dilputant 
miftook,  which  part  of  the  Syllogifm  he  was  to  oppofe  :  And  fo 

*   Exam,  of  Mr.  JVs  Account,  p.  207.  f  Ibid.  p.  210. 

X  Ibid.  p.  216.  §  Ibid.  p.  205,  206. 

inftcad 


.526  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

inftead  of  the  Premijcs,  denied  the  Concltifton.  For  if  he  will  a^m'tt 
that  the  /Idmin'ijlration  did  not  begin  io  be  exerted  till  the  civil  Laws 
had  Jailed,  the  Confequence  is  neceflary,  that,  ivhen  the  civil  Laws 
liiere  remifsly  executed.  Good  and  III  would  fometimes  fall  unequally. — • 
No  Confiquence  at  all,  fays  Dr.  Sykes.  Why  ?  becaufe  <'  upon  Sup- 
*'  pofitiolt"  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  equally  adminiftred,  the 
•*  guilty  Perfons  ought  to  fufFer  by  divine  Vengeance,  Gff."  A 
Man  is  to  be  tried  by  the  common  Commiflion  of  Oyer  and  Ter- 
miner. Let  this  be  admitted,  fays  our  Difputant.  Why  then,  fay 
I,  the  Confequence  is,  that  he  muft  ftay  till  that  Time  comes. 
This  is  no  Confequence  at  all,  replies  he  j  for,  upon  Suppofition  that  he 
ought  to  be  hanged  fooner,  he  ought  to  be  tried  fooner.  But  then, 
good  Dodor,  if  you  had  this  Suppoftion  in  referve,  why  did  you 
admit  wj'  Premises,  which,  when  admitted,  txclu^eyour  Suppojitionf 
— 1  thought  1  liad  done  with  hltn  on  this  head  when  I  had  laughed 
at  him  ;  but  there  is  fomething  fo  malignant  againft  the  Law  it- 
felf,  in  his  Anfwer  to  what  I  fay  of  the  Sufpenfon  of  an  extraor- 
dinary Providence,  that  the  Reader  muft  bear  a  little  longer  with 
us  both.  "This  Sufpenfion  (he  tells  the  Reader)  I  fay  was  pub- 
"  lickly  denounced.  But  (he  fays)  not  one  Proof  is  produced  of  fuch 
*-'  a  public  Denunciation  of  the  Sufpenfion  of  the  extraordinary 
*'  Providence  to  Particulars.  The  only  Paflages  referred  to  for 
*'  this  Public  Denunciation, — are  Ifaiah  iii.  5.  lix.  2.  Ixiv.  7. — 
"  Here  is  certainly  a  great  Evil  threatened  to  Jerufalem  and  fudah', 
*'  but  as  for  a  Sufpenfion  of  an  extraordinary  Providence,  here  is 
"  NOT  ONE  Word. — ^^It  is  as  true  now  as  it  was  th«n,  that  Iniqui- 
'•  ties  will  feparate  between  us  and  God  ;  and  it  has  no  relation  to 
*'  any  Sufpenfion  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  for  a  particular 
*'  Time  *."  Was  there  ever  fuch  a  Reafoner  1  Suppofe  from  a 
Paffage  in  Livy,  which  fpeaks  of  tlie  Creation  of  a  Dilator,  I 
fiiould  infer  that  the  Confular  and  Senatorial,  the  Tribunitial  and 
Popular  Powers  were.all  for  a  time  iufpended  ;  would  it  be  fufficieat 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  JV'shccownt,  Stc,  p,  211,  212, 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  527 

to  fay, — No;  allwliich  that  Pafl'agc  proves  is  the  crefllon  of  a 
fupreme  Magillrate  ;  And  eiediiig  a  lupieme  Maglftrate,  which  is 
a  thing  that  may  be  done  now,  does  not  infer  the  Sulpcniion  of 
thofe  particuhir  Powers.  If  to  this  fine  reafoning,  it  be  replied,  that 
the  Inference  was  fair,  becaufe,  from  other  Parts  of  Livy,  we 
learn  there  were  fuch  power  in  the  Roman  State  ;  which  confe- 
quently  on  the  eredion  of  an  higher  muft  needs  be  fufpended  ;  would 
not  that  teiich  the  Reader  a  ready  Anfwer  to  our  Doftor  r  Is  not 
an  extraordinary  Providence  as  clearly  declared  by  the  Law  of  MofcSf 
as  the  Conlular  and  Tribunitial  Power  by  the  Law  of  Rome?  And 
confequently,  when  God  tells  his  People  that  he  will  withdraw  his 
Face  from  them  for  their  Sins,  and  return  to  them  on  their  Repen- 
tance, is  not  this  as  plain  a  Denunciation  of  the  Sufpenfion  of  that  ex^ 
traordinary  Providence,  as  the  Creation  of  a  Didlator  was  a  Sufpenfion 
of  all  the  other  Magiftracies  ?  But  fo  perverfe  are  thefe  Anfwerersy  and 
fo  much  Strangers  to  their  Bible,  that  an  extraordinary  Providence  to 
Particulars,  which  is  a  Scripture  Dodrine  they  difpute  with  me  as  if 
it  was  my  own  ;  and  a  Future  State  amongfl  the  yeivs,  which  is 
their  own,  they  would  have  not  difputed,  as  if  it  were  a  Scripture 
Dodrine. — ^This  being  premifed,  let  the  Bible  now  fpeak  for  itfelf.. 
Ifaiah  iii.  For  behold  the  Lord  of  Ho/is  doth  take  away  from  '^etn^^X^ni. 
and  from  Judah  the  Stay  and' the  Staff,  the  whole-  Stay  oj  Bread  and 
the  whole.  Stay  of  IVater, — Thy  Men  fJmll  fall  by  the  Sword,  and  thy 
Mighty  in  the  War,  v.  i — 25.  Chap.  \\yi.  Behold  the  Lord's  Hand  ii 
not  fiortened  that  it  cannot  fave',  neither  his  Ear  heavy  that  it  cannot 
hear.  But  your  Iniquities  have  feparated  between  you  and  your  God, 
and  your  Sins  have  hid  his  Face  from  you,  that  he  ivill  not  hear,  &c. 
V.  I,  2.  Ch.  Ixiii.  In  all  their  affiiclion  he  was  aJfliSied,  and  the  Jngcl 
of  his  Prejence  faved  them :  In  his  Love  and  his  Pity  he  redeemed  them^ 
and  he  bare  them,  and  carried  them  all  the  Days  of  old. 
But  they  REBELLED,  ondvexedhis  holy  Spirit  \  therefore  he  was  turned 
to  be  their  Enemy,  and  he  j ought  againji  them,  v.  10,  11.  Ch.  Ixiv. 
And  there  is  none  that  calleth  upon  thy  Name,  thatftirreth  up  himfctf 


528         REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

10  take  hold  of  thee :  for  thou  hajl  hid  thy  Face  from  us,  and  hafl  coti' 
fumed  us  hccaufe  cf  our  Iniquities,  v.  7. 

Well,  fays  he,  "  But  let  us  admit  that  a  Sufpenfion  of  the  ex- 
*'  tracrdlnary  Providence  was  publickly  denounced,  in  thefe  Paf- 
"  fages  of  the  Prophet.  It  was  a  very  fever e  Punifment.  To 
«'  whom  ?  Wiiy  to  all  the  fews — all  of  that  Nation,  the  Virtuous 
*'  and  Wicked,  the  Good  and  the  Bad  *. — Again,  *'  The  fe^vs  had 
*'  been  much  accuftomed  to  an  extraordinary  Difpenfation,  and  now 
*'  this  extraordinary  Providence  is  fufpended  and  publickly  known 
*'  to  be  fo.  Thi'S'was  ?i  fevere  Punifiment  certainly  to  all  good 
*'  Men,  bccaufe  God  was  wont,  and  had  engaged  himfelf  to  grant 
•'  particular  Bleflings  to  all  fuch  ;  whereas  by  this  Suspension 

*'   THEY    were    no    LONGER    INTITULED    TO    ANY     OF     THEM-j~." 

This  is  his  Reprefentation  of  the  State  of  the  Cafe  :  and  from  this 
he  forms  all  his  Difficulties  againfl:  my  Reafoning.  Where  lie  got 
it,  I  know  not  :  But  certainly  not  from  the  Bible  ;  the  Book  of  all 
others  he  feems  the  leafl:  acquainted  with.  Had  he  looked  into 
Thaij  he  would  have  found  that  he  had  given  the  mofi:  falfe  and 
injurious,  becaufe  moft  contrary  Reprefentation  of  this  whole  matter. 
For  the  Bible  tells  us',  that  the  Severity  of  the  Punifiment,  in  this 
Sufpenfion^  fell,  as  it  ought,  not  upon  the  Good,  but  upon  the  Kvil 
only.  Hear  God's  own  exprefs  Declaration  in  the  very  Place, 
where  this  Sufpenfion  is  denounced,  vi%.  the  third  Chapter  of  Ifaiah  ; 
which,  too,  our  Examiner  pretends  to  have  read.  Say  ye  to 
THE  Righteous  that  it  shall  be  well  with  him  :  for'they 

SHALL     eat    the    FrUIT    OF     THEIR     DoiNGS.        Wo    UNTO    THE 

Wicked,  it  shall  be  ill  with  him;  for  the  Reward  of 
HIS  Hands  SHALL  BE  GIVEN  HIM,  10,  II.  And  we  learn,  from 
a  Parabolical  Command  in  Ezekid,  how  exadly  thefe  Promifes 
were  fulfilled — And  the  Lord  faid  unto  him,  Go  through  the  midji  of 
the  City,  through  the  midfi  of  Jeruf;\lem,  and  ft  a  Mark  upon  the 
Foreheads  of  the  Men  thatfigh,  and  that  cry  for  all  the  Abominations 

*   Exam,  of  Mr.  7r'j  Account,  p.  213.  f  l^i'I-  P-  214, 

that 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS.  529 

i hat  be  done  in  the  m'ldjl  thereof.  And  to  others  he  fuid  in  mine 
hearings  Go  ye  after  him  through  the  City  and  fmite :  Let  not  your 
Eyefpare,  neither  have  you  Pity,  Slay  utterly  old  and  young,  both 
Maids  and  little  Children  and  Women ;  but  come  not  near  any  Man 
upon  whom  is  the  Mark  ;  and  begin  at  my  Santtuary,  &€.  clmp.  Ix. 
4 — 0, — And  now,  will  our  learned  Dodor  be  pleafcd  to  take  tiiis 
for  an  Anfwer  likewlfe  to  the  concluding  Words  of  his  Paragraph  ? 
*'  The  great  Point  was  firfl  to  have  been  proved  that  ever  tlicro 
*'  was  fuch  an  extraordinary  Providence  to  Particulars — This,  I 
*'  fay,  fliouldfirft  have  been  proved  ;  which,  I  apprehend,  has  not 
*'  been  done.  Nor,  in  courfe,  will  any  of  thcfc  Pafiagcs  from 
*'  the  Prophets  prove  a  Sufpenfion  of  that  equal  Providence  over 
*'  Particulars,  which  seems  never  to  have  been  exerted  *." 

I  fliould  not  leave  the  Paflage,  here  quoted,  without  obferving, 
that,  where  I  have  made  the  Break,  it  went  on  with  the  oldSophifm, 
in  this  manner, — "  As  that  no  Tranfgrefor  ever  efcapcd  Funipment, 
*'  nor  did  any  Obferver  of  the  Law  mifs  his  prefent  Reward."" — But  I 
wave  it,  as  beginning  now  to  pity  him.  It  has  been  obf.^rved  of 
your  notorious  Story-tellers,  that,  by  often  repeating  a  favourite 
Tale,  they  have  at  laft  come  to  believe  themfelves.  And  thus  it 
feems  to  be  with  our  good  Do£lor.  He  has  urged  His  own  Senfe  of 
the  Propofition  fo  often  to  all  my  Arguments  (not  lefs,  I  dare  fay» 
than  twenty  Times)  that  he  now  feems  in  good  earncfl,  to  take  it 
for  mine.  ' 

XIV. 

But  we  are  drawing  towards  a  Conclufion  with  him.  The  Autlior 
of  The  Divine  Legation  (fays  he)  "  proceeds,  in  the  lafl:  Place,  to 
"  give  a  full  and  general  Solution  of  the  Difficulty.  It  flands  thus  : 
<'  The  common  Caufe  of  thefe  Complaints  arofe  from  the  gradual  with- 
*'  drawing  the  extraordinary  Providence.  Under  the  Judges  it  was 
««  pefeilly  equal.     IVhen  the  People  had  rcbcllioufly  demanded  a  King, 

*  Exam,  of  Mr.  tr'i  Account,   (^c.  p,  214. 

Vol.  VL  Yyy  *' and 


530  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

•"ami — God  fnfercd  the  Theocracy  to  he  admhiiflered  by  a  Viceroy y 
•'  there  was — a  great  Abatement  'in  the  Vigour  of  this  extraordinary 
"  Providence — From  hence  to  the  Time  of  the  Captivity  the  extraordi- 
"  nary  Providence  kept  gradually  decaying;  till,  on  their  full  Scttlc- 
"  ment  after  their  Return,  it  entirely  ccafed. — This  leaves  us  as  much 
'*  in  the  dark  as  any  of  the  Solutions  before  given.  For  the  ex- 
"  traordlnary  Providence  over  Particulars  (by  which  is  always. 
♦'  mi; ANT  fuch  a  Providence  that  no  Tranfgrejfor  efcaped Punijloment^ 
*^  nor  Obferver  of  the  Law  mifed  his  Reward  J  kept  gradually  de- 
♦'  caying  to  the  Captivity.  After  Satnuel*s  Time  there  was  a  great 
*'  Abatement  in  its  Vigour  j  and,  from  this  Time,  it  gradually  de- 
*'  cayed.  Its  Abatement  then  mufl:  be  in  not  infliding  conftantly 
"  temporal  Evils  on  the  one,  or  in  not  giving  conftantly  temporal 
"  Evils  to  the  other:  or  elfe" — Well,  to  flop  him  (hort,  it  did  con- 
fill  in  not  giving  conflantly.  What  then  ?  Why  then  (fays  he)  "  it 
*'  cannot  be  the  former  of  thefe  Notions,  becaufe  if  the  equal  Pro- 
"  vidence  was  not  conllant,  it  would  come  to  be  the  fame  as  unequal* 
"  For  what  is  the  common  Providence,  or  not  extraordinary,  but 
"  where  Tranfgreffbrs  are  often  not  puniftied  here,  but  go  on  and 
♦'  profper  in  their  Wickednefs  ;  and  good  Men  are  often  not  re- 
*'  warded  but  fometimes  fuffer  *  r"  A  moft  admirable  Argument  ! 
and,  as  well  exprefled.  //  cannot  (fays  he)  be  the  former  of  thefe 
Notions — Meaning,  I  fuppofe,  that  if  the  former  of  thefe  Notions 
be  mine,  he  will  fliew  it  to  be  a  falfe  one.  Well,  but  hisReafon  : 
♦'  BECAUSE  if  an  equal  Providence  was  not  conftant,  It  would  come 
"  to  be  the  fame  as  unequal."  Very  well  quibbled  again.  What 
is  not  perfe£}ly  equal  mufl  needs  be  unequal.  Therefore,  as  more 
than  Ten  may  be  either  Eleven  or  Eleven  Thoufand  ;  fo  unequal 
may  fignify,  as  well  the  highefl  Degree  of  Inequality,  fuch  as  that 
Providence  cxercifed  at  prefent,  or  fome  fmall  Deviation  only  from 
Equality.  And  this  being  fo,  he  only  defires  you,  In  couitefy  to 
his  Argument,  to  underftand  it  in  the  firft  Senfe.     And  then  with 

*  Exam,  o-f  Mr. //"j  Account,  Sfff.  p.  217 — 9, 

the 


OCCASIONAL    REFLECTIONS.  53, 

the  fame  fuccefs,  he  will  difpute  agahifl-  the  Moon's  equal  or  regu- 
lar Motion  round  the  Eai  th.  You  Aftronomers,  fays  he  (for,  to  do 
him  Juftice,  nothing  comes  amifs  to  him;  he  has  confounded  all 
Men  in  their  Turns,  and  put  every  Science  out  of  Countenance)  you 
contend  for  the  Moon's  equal  or  regular  Motion  ;  and  }'ct  you  are 
forced  to  confefs  that  there  are  fome  Inequalities  or  Irregularities 
in  that  Motion,  arifing  from  the  Sun's  Attraftion,  the  elliptical 
Figure  of  its  Orbit,  and  its  not  moving  in  the  plain  of  the  Earth's 
Motion.  Now  if  your  equal  Motion  be  not  conjiant,  it  tvould  come 
to  be  the  fame  as  unequal.  For  what  is  regular  Motion  but  that 
which  has  no  Irregularities  ?  In  (hort,  you  have  a  great  Difficulty 
to  furmount  when  you  attempt  upon  your  Scheme  of  Equaliiy  to  ac- 
count for  the  Reprefentations  of  Inequality,  which  Nature  fo  plainly 
makes.  As  great  Authors  as  you  are,  ivhat  has  been  hitherto  pub- 
li/iJed  is  all  Confujion,  and  full  of  inextricable  Dfficultles . 

But,  to  make  his  Argument  wear  the  better,  he  has  lined  his 
Quibble  with  an  Equivocation.  Obferve  his  Words :  If  an  equal  PrO' 
iiidence  (fays  he)  w^i  not  confafit,  it  would  come  to  be  the  fame  as 
unequal.  But  ivhcn  ?  Why  the  Quibble  encourages  you  to  under- 
fland  prefently  ;  which  is  to  the  Purpofe  :  But  if  that  fail,  the 
Equivocation  authorizes  you  to  underftand  many  Ages  afterwards, 
though  it  be  nothing  to  the  Purpofe. — This  equal  Providence  of 
Heaven  kept  gradually  declining  in  its  Vigour,  till  it  became  at  lafl: 
the  prefent  Common  unequal  Providence  ;  and  focouLl  be  no  longer 
called  equal  or  extraordinary.  Thus  again,  the  regular  Motion  of 
the  Moon,  as  our  great  Philofopher,  who  lias  fo  well  accounted  for 
its  prefent  Irregularities,  tells  us,  will  probably,  for  the  Reafon? 
he  affigns,  grow  more  and  more  irregular,  till  it  become  at  lafl  \o 
unconftant,  that  it  will  be  no  longer  a  regular  but  an  irregular 
Motion. 

But  we  are  not  got  to  the  ftrefs  of  the  Affair.     The  old  Sophifm 

lies  yet  at  the  bottom  of  the  Inkhorn  :  But   now  indeed   fo  worn 

and  hacknied,  that  it  is  fcarce  able  to  fupport  a  mifcrablc  Quibble, 

Yyy  2  Yet 


y.2  R  E  xM  A  R  K  S     ON     SEVERAL 

Vet  it  flill  puts  its  befl:  Foot  forward.  This  choice  Reafoning  being, 
introduced  as  ufual,  *'  The  extraordinary  Providence  over  Particu- 
"  lars;  by  which  is  always  meant  fuch  a  Providence  that  A^o 
"  Tmnfgrffor  efcaped  Piinijhtnent,  nor  Obferver  of  the  Law  n:i[fcd 

"  bis  Rctvard.'" always  meant  !     Yes,  truly,  I  can't  but  lay 

lie  is  conftant  enough  in  this  Meaning.  For  which  Reafon  I  mufl 
here,  for  the  CIpJ^^D  C3!?^<J^5  remind  him  whom  it  belongs 
to. — "■'  Mr.  IVcirburton  (jays  he)  produces  fome  Evidence  that  an 
*'  extraordinary  Providence  revived  after  the  return  from  the  Capti- 
vity. He  cites  Haggai^  Zechariah^  Malachi.  But  none  of  thefe 
*'  Places  prove  any  thing  more  than  a  promifed  Blefling  to  the 
'*  Jews  nationally  confidered  *."  Indeed  ?  Why  then  had  he  not 
the  Honefty  to  quote  thofe  Places  in  The  Divine  Legation  which  do- 
prove  more  ?  particularly  from  the  Prophet  Amos,  where  this  ex^ 
traordinary  Providence  is  conlidered  as  adralniftred  to  Particulars.. 
The  Words  quoted  in  Page  438  of  Vol.  II.  +  of  The  Divine  Legatiott 
aie  thefe — j^'fo  I  have  ijoithholden  the  Rain  from  you,  when  there  was 
yet  three  Months  to  the  Harvejl,  and  I  caused  it  to  rain  upon 
ONE  City,  and  caused  it  not  to  rain  upon  another  City, 
ONE  Piece  was  rained  upon,  and  the  Piece  whereupon  it 
RAINED  not,  withered  \. — But  he  goes  on — •*  It  proves  a  very 
*'  ftrong  Promife  to  blefs  the  Nation  of  the  fews — But  as  to  a 
"  Proof  of  an  extraordinary  Providence  in  theSenfe  thatNo  Trans- 

"  GRSSSOR  WAS    TO  ESCAPE  PuNISHMENT,    NOR    NO  OBSERVER    OF 

"  THE  Law  miss  his  Reward,  I  cannot  fee  the  force  of  his  Ar- 
'•  gument  §."  But  I  can  fee  the  Force  of  His,  though  :  And 
therefore  here  again  accufe  him,  for  the  Jf©2lEC^  and  laft  Time,, 
of  a  very  vile  Prevarication  that  has  run  through  all  his  Reafoning 
upon  this  Subjeft. 

*    Exam,  of  Mr.  Ws  Account,  i^c.  p.  220, 

t  Ed.  4to.  vol.  in.  p.  114. 

\   Amos,   chap,  iv.  ver.  7. 

§   Exam,  of  Mr.  W^  Account,  ts'f.  p. 2ii. 

And 


OCCASION  A  L  REFLECTIONS.  533 

And  now  we  are  happily  got  through  his  whole  Exam'mali'M  of 
my  Account  of  the  Nature  of  the  Jewifh  Theocracy.  A  very  lingular 
Compolition  truly!  One  V^xX..  Blunder y^w^  two  Parts  Fallacy [ 
Which  though  it  may  IbmetimeS  make,  as  a  gi-eat  Writer  aflures 
us,  ^  good  Man  of  the  World,  has  here  however  made  a  very  bad 
Pamphlet.  And  no  woiider.  For  this  kind  of  Compofition  re- 
quires, in  both  Cafes,  a  very  nice  Adjuftment.  Otherwife,  in 
playing  the  Knave  (whether  it  be  on  Paper  or  in  Pubhc)  Folly  is 
fo  apt  to  get  the  upper  Hand,  that  very  often  the  firft  Dupe  a  dc- 
ligning  Alan  makes,  is  himfelf:  As,  not  to  mince  tlie  Matter,  in, 
the  Cafe  of  our  Examining  Doflor,  whofe  Wantonnefs  in  under- 
taking a  Subje£l  he  did  not  underftand,  has  fo  far  outftript  his  Art 
in  managing  it,  that,  before  his  Fallacy  had  Time  to  impofe  upon 
others-,  his  too  frequent  and  indifcreet  Repetition  of  it  had  fo  worked 
upon  himfelf,  that  he  became  no  longer  able  to  judge  of  any  thing 
I  had  written  :  And  therefore  confefles  (and  I  dare  fay  truly)  that 
what  I  have  hitherto  published  is  all  Confusion,  to  him^ 

AND  FULL  OF  INEXTRICABLE  DIFFICULTIES  *. 

*'  But  'tis  the  Sport  to  have  the  Engineer 
*'  Hoift  with  his  own  Fetar." 

WE  have  now  pafled  through  our  Two  Examining  Dodors. 
Happy  for  them  had  they  but  known  or  underflood  that  Maxim  of 
a  certain  celebrated  French  Writer,  de  prendre  pour  vrai  ce  q^jb 

PIT    UN    AUTEUR,      SANS    REJETTER    COMME    FAUX    CE    Qu'lL    KE 

BIT  PAS.  In.  thefe  we  find  fo  great  a  Similitude  of  Talents,  that 
Dr.  S.  might  very  well  be  miftaken  for  Dr.  S.  were  it  not  for  fome 
minuter  Differences  ;  a  kind  of  Polemic  Badges,  that  jull:  krve  to 
tell  us  to  what  Party  either  Wearer  belongs. 

But  adjufting  the  Merits  of  fuch  kind  of  Authors,  is  now  the 
leaft  of  my  Concern.  I  here  bid  a  final  Adieu  to  Controverfy,  unlefs 
fome  very  grofs  Provocation  draw  me  back.     For  though  1  iiave 

*  Exam,  of  Air.  l^'s  Account,   i^c,  v>,  222, 


53+  REMARKS    ON    SEVERAL 

not  overloaded  the  Public  with  Writings  of  this  fort,  nor  attempted 
to  engage  its  Attention  but  on  Subjects  of  high  Importance  ;  yet 
even  tliefe  will  receive  their  beft  Defence  and  Support,  by  being 
carefully  conlidered  together,  in  the  Order  I  firfl:  delivered  them. 
For,  as  Lord  Bacon  fays  excellently  well,  The  Harmony  of  a 
Science,  supporting  each  Part  the  other,  is  and  ought 
to  be  the  true  and  brief  confutation  and  suppression  of 
all  the  smaller  sorts  of  objections. 

But  in  taking  a  formal  leave  it  may  perhaps  be  expe(5ted,  that  I 
fliould  fay  fomething  why  I  ever  anfwered  at  all:  And  why  I  an- 
swered In  this  manner.. 

To  the  firft  of  thefe  Queflions  I  muft  needs  confefs,  that  I  have 
never  yet  feen  any  thing  which,  in  my  own  opinion,  deferved  my 
notice.  But  1  was  willing  to  fubmit  to  better  Judgments.  'T/:e 
Public  (fays  a  Friend)  by  whit  I  can  perceive,  thinks  there  is  fome- 
thing in  this  Pamphlet — thinks  iher^  may  be  fomething  in  that.  Well, 
I  fubfcribe  to  the  public  Judgment.  I  examine,  I  write,  I  confute. 
And  what  do  I  get  .by  it  ?  The  Mortification  of  being  told,  that 
now,  forfooth,  the  Public  ivondcrs  why  IJloould  fpend  myJTimc  upon 
fuch  Writers.  And  in  this  manner  I  have  been  ferved — more  than 
once. — The  Public  fays  this;  the  Public  fays  that:  In  fhort,  the 
Public's  a  Wag,  and  loves  to  divert  itfelf  at  the  Expence  of  us  poor 
Authors.  Of  which  Diverfion,  having  (o  fairly  contributed  my 
Quota,  I  (hall  now  beg  leave  to  retire — Luffifotis, — 

As  to  the  Manner  in  which  I  have  anfwered  fome  of  my  Adverfa- 
ries :  Their  InfufFerable  Abufe,  and  my  own  Love  of  Quiet,  made 
it  necefl'ary.  I  had  tried  all  ways  to  filence  an  iniquitous  Clamour; 
by  Negled  of  it ;  by  good  Words,  by  an  Explanation  of  my  Mean- 
ing; and  all  without  Effefl.  The,  Firji  Volume  of  this  obnoxious 
Work  had  not  been  out  many  Days,  before  I  was  fallen  upon  by  a 
furious  Ecclefiaftlcal  News- writer,  with  the  utmoft  Brutality.  All 
the  Return  I  then  made,  or  then  ever  intended  to  make,  wasa^/'«- 
dication  of  my  moral  Character,  wrote  with  fuch  Temper  and  For- 
bearance as  feemed  AfFedation  to  thofe  who  did  not  know  that  I 

only 


OCCASIONAL     REFLECTIONS.         5,^5 

only  wanted  to  be  quiet.  But  I  reckoned  witliout  my  HolL  'liie 
angry  Man  became  ten  times  more  outrageous.  Wliat  was  now  to 
be  done  ?  I  tryed  another  Method  with  him;  I  drew  his  Pidurc  ; 
I  expofed  him  naked  ;  and  fliewed  the  Public  of  what  Parts  and 
Principles  this  Tumour  was  made  up.  It  had  its  Effeft  ;  and  I  never 
heard  more  of  him.  On  this  Occafion,  let  me  tell  the  Reader  a 
Story.  As  a  Scotch  Bag-piper  was  traverfing  the  Mountains  of  Ul/lei\ 
he  was,  one  Evening,  encountered  by  a  himger-Jlarved  hiJJ:)  Wolf. 
In  this  Diftrefs,  the  poor  Man  could  thi^ik  of  nothing  better  tlian 
to  open  his  Wallet,  and  try  the  Effeds  of  his  Hofpitality.  He  did 
fo  :  and  the  Savage  fwallowed  all  that  was  thrown  him  with  fo  im- 
proving a  Voracity,  as  if  his  Appetite  was  but  juft' coming  to  him. 
The  whole  Stock  of  Provifion,  you  may  be  fure,  was  foon  fpent. 
And  now,  his  only  Recourfe  was  to  the  Virtue  of  the  Bap-pipe  ; 
which  the  Monfler  no  fooner  heard,  than  he  took  to  th«  Mountains 
with  the  fame  Precipitation  that  he  had  come  down.  The  poor 
Piper  could  not  fo  perfe<5lly  enjoy  his  Deliverance,  but  that,  with 
an  angry  Look  at  parting,  he  fhook  his  Head,  and  faid,  Ay\  arc 
thefe your  Tricks? — Had  I  known  yonr  Humour,  you  fhculd  hai:s  had 
your  Mujic  before  Supper. 

But  though  I  had  the  Caduceus  of  Peace  in  my  Hands,  yet  it  was 
only  in  Cafes  of  Neceffity  that  I  made  ufe  of  it.  And  therefore  I 
chofe  to  let  pafs,  without  any  Chaftifement,  fuch  impotent  Railers 
as  Dr.  RichardGrey,  and  one  Bate,  a  Zany  to  a  Mountebank.  On 
the  other  hand,  when  I  happened  to  be  engaged  with  fuch  very 
learned  and  candid  Writers  as  Dr.  Middleton  and  The  Maf.cr  of  the 
Charter-hoife,  I  gave  fufficient  Proof  how  much  1  preferred  a  dif- 
ferent manner  of  carrying  on  a  Controverfy,  would  my  Anfwerers 
but  afford  me  the  Occafion.  But  alas  !  as  I  never  yZ'OKA/ have  fuch 
learned  Men  long  my  Adverfaries,  and  never  ivould  iiave  thele  other 
x:Ciy  Friends,  I  found  that,  if  I  wrote  at  all,  I  muft  be  condemned 
to  a  manner,  which  all,  who  know  me,  know  to  be  moll:  abhor- 
rent to  my  natural  Temper.  So,  on  the  whole,  I  refolved  to  quit 
my  hands  of  them  at  once  :  And  turn  again  to  nobler  Game,  more 
Vol.  VI.  Yyy4  fMtabk, 


^^6  REMARKS,    C^c 

J'uitMey  as  Dr.  S.'cbbhig  tells  me,  io  my  Clerical  Fm^lioti,  that  pcf- 
tiltiit  Hcnrot"  libertine  Scriblers,  with  which  the  Ifland  is  over-run  ; 
whom  I  would  hunt  down,  as  good  King  Edgar  did  his  Wolves; 
from  the  mighty  Author  oi  Chrijlianily  as  old  as  the  Creation^  to  the 
drunken  bhifplKniing  Cobler,  who  wrote  againft  Jefus  and  the  Re- 
(urreclion  *. 

To  conclude,  then,  if  hitherto,  in  the  Courfe  of  my  juft  Vindi- 
cation, any  thing  has  elcaped  me,  ofFenllve  to  the  candid  Reader,  I 
heartily  wifh  it  unfaid.  Not  for  the  fake  of  thofe,  the  fo  proper 
SubjefVs  of  it,  for  Si  indlgnus  qui  facer  em,  at  illi  digni  hac  contiimelia 
jimt  maxime :  but  for  the  fake  of  the  Public, '"to  whom  I  have  Ob- 
ligations for  their  fair  and  generous  Reception  of  my  Writings.  Not 
but  the  Candour  and  Equity  of  their  Judgment  will,  I  know, 
always  carry  along  with  it  what  I  am  now  about  to  fay,  in  Alle- 
viation of  any  Harftniefs  that  may  have  efcaped  me,  under  all  the 
Calumny  that  Envy,  in  the  Difguife  of  falfe  Zeal,  has  fo  liberally 
poured  out  upon  me  :  Which  is  this :  That  my  fole  Motive  in  writ- 
ino-  The  Divine  Legation  was  the  Difcovery  and  Advancement  of 
Truth,  and  (in  that)  the  Support  and  Eftablifhment  of  Revelation. 
And  if  I  needed  a  Voucher,  I  have  the  Fleajure  to  obferve,  that 
the  Encouragement  given  to  this  Attempt,  is  fufficient  to  fliew,  that 
no  confiderable  Man,  either  in  Church  or  State,  did,  indeed,  ever 
think  that  1  had  any  other  Motive. 

*  In  a  Pamphlet,  intituled,  The  RcfurrcSiion  of  Jcfus  danonjlrated  to  ha-ve  no  Proof,  In 
anfik-tr  to  a  late  Pamphlet,  called,   the  Refurreflion  of  Jefus  cleared,   i^c.     London,  printed 

for  J.  f adman.   In  Fiect  Street.     Price  One  Shilling  . But  fome  fay  this  was  no  Cobler, 

but  Dr.  Morgan's  own  Apothecary  ;  who  now  writes  by  his  Matter's  Receipts.  Indeed, 
he  is  of  fo  llrowg  a  Complexion  as  to  make  it  very  probable  he  muft  be  one  whofc 
Trade  it  has  been  to  apply  himfelfonly  to  the  wrong  End  of  Hum«nKind.  But  whether 
he  be  i  f  this,  or  the  other  cleaner  Trade,  1  would  recommend  it  to  the  fine  Gentlemen  _ 
TO  confider,  if  it  w  ill  not  foon  be  necefiary,  for  their  Honour,  to  profefs  themfelves  on 
the  Side  of  Relig'ori,  fince  Infdclity  is  thus  fallen  into  Attainder,  and  can  now  defcend 
no  lower. 


A  LETTER 


ERRORS    OF     THE    PRESS    IN    VOL.    VI. 


P.     7.  /.  20.  i.httfuffir,  infert  me, 

n.  /.  19.  lor  Gods,  r.  God's. 

34.  /.  4.  from  the  bottom,  for  flte,  r.fati, 

44.  n.  I.  I.  for  dominum,  r.  dominmm. 
iSr-    1    ?n.   for  iy  rcarh.  r.  «iy  reach. 
1S8.  /.  9.  from  the  bottom,  for  otiouW,  r.^rould. 
469.  /.  2.  for  charitable  office,  r.  charitable  fl»  ofEce. 
350.  /.   II.  forw<f,  r.  was. 
576.  /.  25.  for  believing  bis  having  a  principle,  read  and  pointW//;Vw'«^  is  having,  a 

principle— 
439.  /.  6.  for  he  has  learnt,  r.  he  has  not  learnt. 
522.  /.  14.  for  «»equal  providence,  r.  equal  providence. 
527.  /.  6.  for  power,  r.  power/. 
530.  /.  14.  for  evilt,  r.  rewards. 
533.  /.  10.  for  »'»,  r.  is. 


Y  y  y  5 


Vi/orks 


3757 

1788 
V.6 


D    000  Of) 


Mefurn  this  material  to---  •■ 


fr„,r,     u  '•"•"'"^>  'o  the  librarv 
'rom  Which  it  was  borrowed    '^ 


FACILITY